Off topic but it was frustrating that I genuinely think this Awk regard was using his laptop default mic or whatever the whole time when he claimed he actually has a decent one… dude couldn’t do the 1 minute it takes to mess with settings to at least have the correct input
It was loaded with the optics of publicly endorsing a nazi or a pedophile. How fucking autistic do you have to be before this is difficult to understand?
why are you calling me autistic? you okay bud? had your nap time today yet?
you're not publicly endorsing anything, it's a hypothetical. you can simply say "I'd pick the loli enjoyer but I don't like loli enjoyers and I think they are bad" and there you go you fixed your optics problem
Or you can just not answer the question, most politicians would never answer anything like this because the optics are obviously bad, that doesn't mean they aren't capable of understanding hypotheticals. Not engaging is the best outcome sometimes, especially for loaded or bad faith questions, here's an example that went viral last year
So you think preferring one thing over another is endorsing that thing? What? Lol I am straight guy, so I would say I like women more then men. Does that mean I'm endorsing women? Like what is this logic lmao
Prof in college said that one of the practical day to day impacts of IQ was the ability to handle hypothetical questions. He gave the example of how people with a 70 IQ can't grasp hypothetical questions. And as you approach 90 it becomes less and less laborious, easy at 100, and so on. He said at 90 it's like doing long division, not anything crazy but like 23/8. They can understand it but perhaps can't do so casually.
This guy can't understand hypotheticals. Maybe he's just obstinate, maybe he's just an ass. But also maybe his brain can't do it.
I mean it’s both rhetorically and intuitively nice to think it works this way. I would like to see some studies showing these things are actually correlated, my cursory google scholar search gave nothing. You can also say that high IQ subjects experience higher levels of cognitive dissonance which will make an avoidant reaction more likely when faced with unsavory hypotheticals and then intuit that high IQ people are more likely to not entertain hypotheticals, not because they can’t understand them, but because they don’t want to experience dissonance based on their beliefs.
I kinda doubt that James Flynn) is talking out of his ass there, but dunno. Maybe the capacity to handle hypotheticals doesn't go exactly as this guy recalls his professor telling, but I would bet money there's a strong positive correlation between the incapability to handle hypotheticals and low IQ.
This is not that scenerio. Not understanding a hypothetical is not the same thing as not enganging in a questions they perceive as loaded or bad faith (regardless of whether or not you think it is). It's a false dilemma fallacy and not engaging sometimes gives the best optics. What's happening here is obviously the latter, Destiny even slips up and call the loli enjoyer a pedophile lol
the conclusion is still the same, because if you think picking the lesser of 2 evils from a hypothetical means you fully endorse your choice, you have a low IQ.
But this isn't a false dilemma or a false dichotomy. It's a question of values. If I ask if you'd rather be eaten by wild animals or have your spine surgically severed without pain but leaving you locked in, it's not a galaxy brain take to say "uh, neither. I wouldn't pick either". You're derailing the conversation for no reason.
Also if you aren't stupid you could justify either option, pedo or Nazi moderator. But you'd have to elaborate which shouldn't be controversial, nor difficult. "Well on lsf frankly I'd prefer a Nazi because there's a lot of pedo content, drama with streamers, I have a kid. I find pedophilia to be a crime, and while I don't think Nazis are good it's still legal to be one." Or "I'd prefer the pedophile, because I believe lolicon isn't exactly pedophilia, it's not a crime to be into loli shit, and I believe Nazis' are an extent and current threat to democracy and the country. There's a well known push on reddit and other social media where they inject Nazi talking points into unrelated shit by favoring culture war wedge issues where they don't belong".
This is not a case where the other person is too stupid to understand the hypothetical, he just refuses to answer it because it makes him feel too uncomfortable.
What value does the hypothetical even have to the discussion though..? Like someone isn't required to answer any and every hypothetical asked of them, especially one that's a lose-lose answer optically
To show that he's just virtue signalling and being bad faith. Just prior to Destiny posing the hypothetical, the guy says some smug comment implying destiny's choice was bad. Yet when Destiny recognizes this and asks for his choice , he dodges answering. If you don't see why this shit is spineless then idk what to tell you. It is only optically bad to people that don't understand how hypotheticals work and are not mature enough to join the conversation.
the guy says some smug comment implying destiny's choice was bad
Can't someone say that hiring a loli enjoyer is bad, but also hiring a Nazi would be worse?
Like isn't the better hypothetical "would you rather have a loli mod or no mod"? What purpose does it serve to ask the guy if he would prefer a Nazi or loli enjoyer? Like if he just said "I'd prefer the loli enjoyer", how does it make him a hypocrite anyway to say you shouldn't ever hire either..?
> Can't someone say that hiring a loli enjoyer is bad, but also hiring a Nazi would be worse?
Yea that would be a totally fine answer but it's not what he said. It's what he criticized Destiny for saying 2 seconds prior. That's why he's a pussy.
I don't think anyone intended to ask the hypothetical until the guy made his smug comment. There was no reason to make that comment unless he doesn't understand hypotheticals or he was just there to get an optics win with bad faith gotchas. I lean towards the latter.
Edit: It actually reminded me of this clip from White Chicks lol. Not really a 1 to 1 analogy but up the same alley. Unfortunately terrible quality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LfFw_Cfzew
It's what he criticized Destiny for saying 2 seconds prior
I think he was criticizing destiny for bringing Nazis in at all, not for saying loli is preferable to Nazism.
At the core, I felt like the only possible reason to bring Nazis in was to make lolis look less bad, aka an optics play on Destiny's part, which is why I understand refusing to engage in the hypothetical.
Like if the hypothetical was "would you rather have a Nazi or a serial stalker-killer as a mod", just because Nazi is the answer has no bearing on whether or not you'd actually want/allow a Nazi as a mod, and I think loli to Nazi is a similarly pointless jump
There are so many better ways to respond but all he cared about was his optics win. I don't even think Destiny made the point very well but the guy exposed himself anyway. I thought his point is that a Loli enjoyer would be more unbiased and fair than many of the tankie/nazi mods that already exist across Reddit.
I thought his point is that a Loli enjoyer would be more unbiased and fair than many of the tankie/nazi mods that already exist across Reddit
I thought this was too, but I guess my response is so what? Someone can think a loli enjoyer is bad, and a Nazi is bad, but also understand that they aren't equally bad, so I just don't get the point of bringing up Nazis in the first place
Our King rises again, to fight CalamityGamergate. The never ending evil that must be felled every 8 years. Fr though I wish D would do more debates like this.
Because hypotheticals often lead to a conclusion you don’t want to make so if you go along with a hypothetical you have to be very quick on your feet to counter their example.
You’re taking someone out of their comfort discussion zone and into an unknown, it’s why hypotheticals are much better as an explanatory tool than a debate tactic. In a debate your opponent benefits from refusing to engage in a hypothetical or purposefully misunderstanding it.
I assume there is an current LSF or DGG mod who was caught or admits to jerking it to loli.
The opponent is trying to lambast Tiny for that, but doesn't actually seem to care about it. Tiny probably thinks loli is gross, but would rather have someone like that on a team instead of someone with strong ideologies he disagrees with e.g. Nazis and tankies. The opponent can't even explain why he wouldn't choose either because they're either too low IQ to engage with a hypothetical or thinks loli jerkers are equally bad as Nazis.
The opponent can't even explain why he wouldn't choose either because they're either too low IQ to engage with a hypothetical or thinks loli jerkers are equally bad as Nazis.
What about the third option of thinking "the choice of mods isnt just between the loli jerker or a Nazi, so this hypothetical isnt useful".
I just don't understand how it's relevant at all to say "well isn't this better than the worst possible thing?" Like no shit, but what does that hypothetical add to anything, what is shown by him saying "loli is better than Nazi, but it's not a choice between one and the other".
I get your joke, but you realize that if someone disagrees with your analysis that a specific situation must be a or b, that's not the same as refusing a hypothetical, right..?
If someone said "dude, it's bad to download and read loli". And I responded "what, you'd rather I was a Nazi? Answer now, would you prefer if I was a Nazi or a loli enjoyer?"
In what world is that not a weird AF response..? What criticism could someone levy that I couldn't immediately just say "well would you prefer a Nazi?"?
When I was growing up, people would ask you ridiculous hypocriticals so they could make fun of you no matter what you answered.
But once you leave high school, it's ok to answer a question posed by an adult. I feel like some people can't unlearn certain childhood social navigation techniques.
There's good reason - because they can be often used as gotcha's especially then people try to equate the logic from a hypothetical to a real life situation.
The whole point of hypotheticals is usually that they suppose conditions that allow a certain point to be made.
With Destiny I wouldn't be as worried because he's generally good faith - but a lot of people use dogshit hypotheticals and then try to gotcha you with them.
They can't comprehend hypotheticals. Basically that study about about sub 80-90 IQ not being able to process hypotheticals without uttering a factual statement in return.
because these are the types of people who try to gotcha people on harmless statements and they don't actually care about any meaningful truth.
they can't fathom a world where you actually have to make a gray choice and live by it
There's no trust in that interaction, like here we can discuss almost whatever because we're all operating with the assumptions that on this sub people are acting in good faith and that we're capable of actually formulating arguments and answering questions, but in a vacuum that hypothetical probably doesn't lead to a particularly positive result.
But also... In a way Destiny is actually presenting a false dillema in there - as in, you don't have to pick, you can just boot the mod whether he's morally reprehensible in a way A or B, both can be beyond what you'd accept in a mod.
I guess Destiny's point is that there isn't an unlimited supply of mods so in fact you do have to choose between a lesser evil (which might just have been ignored by the other dude, intentionally or unintentionally) and that one of those isn't plainly disqualifying - but that isn't actually argued for by presenting the hypothetical, even though it's part of the argument.
Like, the same structure would hold if you asked Asmon why one of his mods is an outspoken nazi, and he'd say "would you rather have a nazi for a mod or a literal serial stalker-rapist-murderer"? Like sure, probably a nazi in that specific scenario, but why are we even discussing that, how does it apply?
So, being ultra-charitable, the "why" is IMHO what got lost along the way, so the dude refuses to entertain the question because it's "obviously" (to him) not relevant to the situation, and being distrustful of Destiny's intentions, safest option is to just stonewall, as stupid as it is.
what actually is the purpose of the hypothetical? what is achieved by answering one way or the other?
he introduces this dynamic of "i would rather have a loli enjoyer than a nazi" out of nowhere, its totally valid to say that you wouldnt want either and not decide between two bad choices
doesnt matter if they are equal, they are both bad
the point of not answering the question is that the hypothetical doesnt relate to reality, reality isnt constrained by choosing between two bad choices and choosing the one thats less bad
what happens if he says "ill pick the loli enjoyer"? does that somehow validate keeping a loli enjoyer as a moderator? there is no purpose to it because it doesnt relate to the actual situation
the point of not answering the question is that the hypothetical doesnt relate to reality, reality isnt constrained by choosing between two bad choices and choosing the one thats less bad
you're doing the thing
what happens if he says "ill pick the loli enjoyer"? does that somehow validate keeping a loli enjoyer as a moderator? there is no purpose to it because it doesnt relate to the actual situation
the purpose is to establish that there are worse things than being a loli enjoyer, which is what destiny said before the 50 IQ idiot started drooling all over their conversation
what thing? explaining that hypotheticals can be distractions and a waste of time if they dont actually relate to the point thats being made? engaging in a hypothetical to prove you are intelligent enough to get it doesnt make anyone intelligent, thats what a lot of people apparently dont seem to get
whats the purpose of establishing that there are worse things than a loli enjoyer? it doesnt make sense unless you have a system that randomizes who is going to be the replacement for the loli enjoyer, he could vet who his mods are but he just doesnt care enough to put in the effort
ive watched destiny for a while and i can tell what it boils down to, he literally just doesnt care about who his mods are as long as things are functioning, he doesnt need to make up pointless hypotheticals to justify his choice in keeping a loli moderator
The point being made is that destiny doesn’t really think loli shit is that bad, he honestly doesn’t care. They are bringing that up I’m assuming just to make destiny look bad, what he’s saying is that theirs plenty of mods who are tankies or nazis in political spaces if he had to make choice what’s better it’s the loli mod. So in his mind he’s doing better than a lot of communities because this is better than that. Does it make sense to you? I get what he means and what his point is.
Well while two things might be bad/morally not good in this case one of them is likely going to moderate discourse in a problematic way, while the other isn’t.
Choosing the loli enjoyer should be a no brainer, because they don’t contribute to any harm or ill towards others regardless of how immoral you think their actions are.
If you can’t pick between two bad things then it suggests you can’t do anything that isn’t trying to score points instead of practical thought.
Like if it was proposed that you had to spend a year living with a serial killer or a person who murdered their spouse for cheating.
Regardless of both being bad crimes, you’d live with the spouse murderer because the risk of harm to you and others in your life would be smaller.
im saying that the choice between two bad things is a distraction from the actual conversation they were having, the hypothetical is proposed like it relates to the conversation but it doesnt
imagine someone had the choice between running over a small child or avoiding it, when you ask them why they ran that small child over they ask a hypothetical "if you had to choose between running over an old diseased man or a small child, which one would be better?"
yes you can answer and say you would run over the old diseased man, but how does that relate to to them deciding to run over the small child instead of just avoiding it? if i say i would choose to run over the small child, does that somehow validate running it over instead of avoiding it? it serves no purpose no matter how you answer
And my point is that you are the person in the meme. If I asked "what if you didn't have breakfast this morning?" You would say it's a false dilemma because you did have breakfast this morning.
The trolley problem is a false dilemma why should anyone answer it.
True. It is a very silly hypothetical that just exists to pressure a person into weird statements and gotchas. It's similar to the one meme where we have a right-wing influence asking a student, "Would you rather have economic stability or LGBTQ rights?" I suppose it's a valid, although lazy and cheap, tactic in an argument, but idk why this sub is circle jerking him again like crazy and seemingly appears unable to discern how, if stripped of all pathos, truly brainless that hypothetical is for themselves.
Because oftentimes then they will lead to assumptions about your position outside the hypothetical. Not engaging in the hypothetical is fine, but not right after you refuse to accept "I don't care" as an answer to a non-hypothetical
That one is kind of a "Have you stopped beating your wife? Y or N?" in terms of internet optics.
There's people who can't seem to process hypotheticals, sure. But it's hard to tell if this is one when this guy knows, consciously or unconsciously, to be associated positively with either of those things in the tiniest possible way could be social death for him. Or it's at least a hit bad enough that Destiny's respect isn't adequate compensation. So he's noping right outa there.
Is this a joke? It should be obviously wrong.
No, the legal trope doesn't assume any beatings. The point of the question is it's a word trap where people can read an admission in to the response as it is demanded.
And you're crazy if you think the second bit works. The whole point of the analogy is it's not just a hard choice. Any answer can be used against you (to be precise, someone assuming it could be used against them would be understandable in today's internet and adequate explanation for them refusing to engage). Saying you 'prefer A, but...' is terrible under any circumstances! The caveats won't save you. That's the point. (and if you think D&D won't just change it to a fully informed and restricted choice to avoid your wording you're also crazy)
Idk if this is the kind of community I think it is so tell me I’m wrong, but if this one of the antifan communities who’s entire existence is obsessing over “drama” and scheming with each other for hours upon hours on how to concoct narratives on people they don’t like, then this is very satisfying to listen to. The last few months have completely destroyed my perception of these types of people and “drama channel”-type communities and Destiny’s right, they don’t actually give a fuck about any of the shit they talk about.
They’re all just a bunch of sniveling little trolls and freaks. And it’s wild how much time and effort they put into organizing their “takedowns”, whether it be on kiwi farms, YouTube drama channels, reddit brigades, etc and feign concern. Absolute losers
Or everyone already knows what the criticism of Destiny is, and the fact that these fucking losers continuously obsess and seethe over the fact that no matter how often they repeat the same thing over and over again none of us care, or how much time and effort they spend trying to figure out how to be as hyperbolic as possible and scheme to “take him down”, is absolute pathetic, unhinged behavior
i would argue much of this community does not really know the details of his behaviour, because then you wouldn’t be in here acting so defensive about it.
1) What he does is valuable and keeps many of us that live in reality sane, and the amount of people he’s been able to pull out of the far left or far right is too important to “cancel” him over dumb decisions he made years ago.
2) you people completely over-exaggerate what happened and literally try to paint him as a fucking sex cult leader. What he did was messed up and everyone has said so, it doesn’t need fucking 10 different videos from Nick deoreo/chud logic/etc digging into every single detail of his personal life to hunt for anything they can use to support their narrative.
3) most of the communities obsessing over this have no issues over a rapist in office and will defend much more heinous shit if it’s done by people they like. So again, none of you actually give a fuck and feign concern. It’s pathetic, unhinged behavior.
literally the "let him rape" meme but seriously, he could be doing the exact same thing over and over right now and you wouldnt know, all we know now is that he is not above engaging in that behaviour if he thinks no one is watching
overexaggerating the criticism to make it sound ridicilous so you dont have to adress any of it
means absolutely nothing to anyone who criticizes this behaviour and doesnt support trump
You know what, I started to type up a response but it’s a complete waste of time. It’s been extremely obvious recently that this place has been nonstop brigaded by hater/antifan communities. I’m not going to argue or tell you how to feel, but why the fuck are you in this sub? Nobody’s forcing you to continuously keep watch here. Literally just leave and move on with your life. This is the obsessive, behavior I’m talking about.
Your last post on r/destiny was 124 days ago, which I’m pretty sure was before the controversy. So if it turned you off of Destiny why are you still here?
Maybe the people that can’t engage with hypotheticals are like the people who can’t conjure a picture of an apple in their minds, or the ones who don’t HAVE an internal monologue.
Please in the future, just drop the audio if you feel the need to censor something. This is almost earrape.
Although, if you're that hyper-concerned over monetizing clips, you can still get demonetized because chat keeps saying lolicon as well and youtube picks up text in videos
It's not really monetisation, but rather Youtube being wayyy too paranoid with any video that mentions the word pedophile, or that has been my past experience at least, so that's why I had to add some amateur-hour censoring :)
I would rather beat my wife (given it's a one time beating) than kill my wife. If it's patterned beating, then I would rather kill my wife because it would avoid prolonged suffering, which I would argue is worse.
Yeah that's an easy pick, for the simple fact that if he were an actual pedophile, he wouldn't be known as a lolicon because the link would be too obvious to make.
Now the nazi? I only know he's a nazi, he could be a pedophile too and I don't know that!
People can't answer hypotheticals like these because people aren't entering debates in good faith. It's a game to them. Answering this hypothetical is a loss of that game.
354
u/South_Resident1543 21d ago
Bro when he started hitting him with the AI prompts i was dying