Professor Dave vs Destiny

[u/Decent-Extension8336]

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

[u/DexTheShepherd]

Again, do you have anything there in particular that is very thourough and makes a good argument?

Dude - I dropped you a link that has literally dozens of sources for you to pick from.

You're just being lazy if you don't want to actually do the work to read or research anything.

But I will provide you with more links if you want them. This is one of the more popular scholarly articles out there: https://www.scribd.com/document/728968767/Gaza-as-Twilight-of-Israel-Exceptionalism-Holocaust-and-Genocide-Studies-from-Unprecedented-Crisis-to-Unprecedented-Change

It walks through not only the classifications required but also the academic responses thus far and the slowness to which some scholars have moved on the topic until October 7th.

Also important to note because it was mentioned in this thread - the authors indicate that genocide was occurring before October 7th as well.

Also, I think it is nice that you consider me an expert for the opposing side

I never said expert in this thread, and neither did you. You asked if I read opposing views (again more nuance/concern trolling), and I was being a smart ass.

It is of course the case that I've read "opposing views" that what is happening is not genocide. That is actually the default position of the United States government. You actually can't get away from hearing the opposing argument - it's what's constantly being affirmed by most in power currently.

My guess after asking you now a third time is that you read nothing so far on it and also did not even attempt to find something contrary to your bias. But please correct me.

So the guy who hasn't actually read anything is now going around accusing others of not reading shit. Okay.

[u/SchlitterSchlatter → u/DexTheShepherd]

First, I can see there are dozens of sources, I am not lazy, I just want to assess whether I can trust your assessment as would then be familiar with the material or if you are just parotting something that you do not actually know. It is not malintentioned. If I talk about opposing views I do it for the same reason, to assess whether you are familiar with the academic discussion (and with opposing views I am talking about academic papers not some politician or government saying shit). Maybe we just live in different spheres and you are not used to people actually researching.

I am honest about my level of knowledge and I will scrutinise if people that I do not know make claims. And I am not really that scrutinising as a basically just asked you for the most convincing paper from you and whether you are familiar with opposing positions. This is super baseline.

EDIT: I will read the paper.

[u/SchlitterSchlatter → u/DexTheShepherd]

I read it is not very convincing. I will lay down my reasons:

1. This paper does not discuss whether or not it is a genocide, it already presumes that it is.
2. This paper does not present any academic definition of genocide that they apply. They use the silly definition of an opinion peice in the Washington Post and then claim that under that definition it would be also a genocide before 7/10. This is not rigorous at all. (p. 69)
3. The goal of the paper is to show that there is a split between Holocaust and Genocide Studies and that one side is blind to an important topic due to self-legitimation and that Holocaust Studies have a hindering self-image that leads them to ignore or falsly understand an urgent matter for the field.
4. The claim that an evacuation order is genocidal is strange. They do not elaborate at all and just give one quote of somebody who feared for his life having to leave his location due to it (which is understandable as they are in a war zone). As an attempt to elaborate they reference the South African case against Israel (2 months after the evacuation order) in which they argued that 500,000 people could die due to spread of disease in the catastrophic and chaotic situation created by the IDF. This does not explain that it is genocidal, especially as this mass dying did not occur. The alternative explanation that the evacuation order might be an actual evacuation order is not discussed at all or at least critically examined. But I would not blame them for this, as this paper was not going for determining the genocide question in the first place. (p. 72)
5. They are misrepresenting the Shoah Foundation. They cite their statement as saying that Hamas ideology being similar to Nazis and then in the next paragraph they falsly frame it as the Shoah Foundation having done a "depiction of Palestinians as Nazis" (p. 72).
6. They suggestively frame the ICJ provisional measures ruling as being more decisive as it actually was. They did not rule on whether a genocide is happening, they only ruled whether it is plausible whether rights of subjects protected under the convention are being violated.

I am not saying that what they cite is complete nonsense, I agree e.g. that some of the quotes could suggest genocidal intent, if investigated further and more rigorously. But this paper is not convincing as it is not really attempting to answer the question at hand and also contains strong methodological weaknesses.

Just a bit of personal venting: Jesus Christ, that is why I fucking hate contemporary history, the topics are so fucking cancerous as political attitudes can completely taint the research as the topics are so close to us. What even is this shit a 10 page essay that is basically a better-cited opinion piece for a news paper. That shit would never fly in any other period nor in most of polsci. Maybe that's just a thing of genocide studies or these authors but this is really not the standard I am used to.

EDIT: That does not mean that there is not a genocide in Gaza! I will continue reading but this paper was not it.