Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
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.
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.
Mr. Whatchamacallit
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.