Destiny gets WRECKED by a Tankie!

hello hello can you hear me

loud and clear okay man so destiny i saw

your richard wolf debate

and i got to tell you you got to take

the l on that if you're an honest guy

you got to take the l you really lost

that one

and you were wrong on a point and i feel

like it's my responsibility to come in

here and correct you on that point

because you were absolutely wrong about

it

oh my god what point is that fiduciary

responsibility dude you didn't know what

you were talking about

oh no what was i wrong about for that

you were saying

that fiduciary responsibility means

companies have to adopt a specific model

for how they organize their workplace

and it's patently not true

okay i didn't say that so fiduciary

responsibility means that you have an

obligation to act in good faith the

center for the company yeah

and by the way by the way in law they

call that a

it's not a bright line rule which means

it's dictated by common laws

by court president and courts yeah

courts are not gonna say

oh you run a co-op then you're

abdicating on your fiduciary

responsibility

and richard will tried to say that to

you and then you brought up the

holodomor or something or famines it

didn't make any sense to me

okay none of what you just said makes

sense yeah yeah he said there's there's

been thousands of cases in the courts

and all you have to do is show that you

made a good faith effort

and that's that will be interpreted

vaguely you're not going to be like oh

well since co-ops are an inferior model

to running it in another way

it's no longer going to be good faith no

they're going to say that was your good

faith effort and another thing you

overlooked is the fact that

one thing let's see one thing yeah so

okay

so let's talk about

let's talk about investing okay yeah so

let's say that i want to put my money

into a company

so there's two types of companies that i

could put my money into now i know

there's a lot more i'm just simplifying

things for the sake of this explanation

so i have one company that has other

private investors that all own parts of

this company

and there's a board of directors yeah i

understand right yeah it's a management

issue

yeah and then i've got another company

that has like it's worker owned and

worker ran

right if i shares into it i don't get

any saying how the company is running

yeah yeah

so given all else equal why would i ever

invest in the co-op knowing that

before i can answer that question with

ease but before we get into that i want

to clear this up

fiduciary responsibility is a legal

issue co-ops are not illegal in the us

so no you would not be abdicating on

your fiduciary responsibility according

to court precedent

if you're running a co-op we got to

clear that up before we get into

you know like why co-ops would be you

know why would would they be able to

attract private investment or not are

they viable to attract private

investment

before we get into that and i want to

get into that with you because i have

things that we have to clear up for that

too

we have to accept fiduciary

responsibility is a legal issue

it's not a matter of like what is more

rational for an investor because as you

know

the stock market does not guarantee

you're going to get a return you're

going to get profits

people fuck up investments all the time

companies fail

all the time companies aren't successful

all the time that's how the stock market

works that's how it works

sure but there's a difference between a

company

that's trying to minimize its costs

versus a company that has

a board of words i heard i heard you

bring up this point with denims

if you want to repeat your viewers let

me yeah let me i have to lay this on

because you're interested

over and over and over again so because

i don't know if anybody even knows what

i'm talking about right now okay okay

okay go ahead

later the way that a firm is

traditionally organized labor is seen as

a cost so if you are an owner of a firm

your goal is to minimize a cost

labor is a cost you want to pay labor as

little as possible and get the most work

out of them that's

part of what you do you want to get the

biggest return for the company possible

you have the company to make as much

revenue and have as much profit

and if you've got private owners that

means delivering property to them right

that's what your goal is as a private

firm owner is to maximize profit

and minimize costs maximize revenue

minimize costs if you have

part of the cost the labor doing their

own like

organizing representation well now you

have a strange conflict of interest

because labor

is going to be incentivized to increase

that particular cost of doing business

because they're directly benefiting by

doing so

so having private investors mixed in

with labor there is a weird conflict of

interest that would probably

make private investors like not feel

confident about investing in that kind

of organization

that's essentially what i'm saying okay

i got you so that's for your viewers

because i already knew

you're arguing your whole position on

that i want to say before we get into

that

i want you to make a statement on the

issue of fiduciaries because a separate

issue what you're talking about

is you think worker co-ops are

inherently inefficient and they're not

going to be good

efficient and all of that is nothing but

a worker call could be incredibly

efficient

when i say fiduciary responsibility i'm

just talking about a corporation

it's a legal issue it's a legal issue

that's when you're saying fiduciary

responsibility

you're talking about something that's

relating to the laws not

i mean if you really want to be like

really that's what the word means

what do you mean okay

like according to the course yeah you're

like

it's kind of like saying like uh a girl

like oh my god like that girl got that

dude drunk and then raped him and you're

like screaming like

rape is only when there's insertion of a

penis that's the only way for it to be

right because that's what the law says

i'm not just talking about the law

in terms of business practice okay if i

invest in a

okay okay okay okay i got you got you

you know i got you i got you i got your

point

loud and clear i got your point and it

says co-ops don't necessarily have like

the same type of aligned incentive to

return

listen i understand that's me i'm gonna

address that point

but here's my issue richard wolff is 79

years old so when he hears fiduciary

responsibility

he's thinking about what it actually

means like what people mean when they

when people most people what they mean

by that is legal fiduciary

responsibility it's a legal issue okay

and when he said when he contested your

point

everyone was you tried to make him seem

like and you and dgd tried to make it so

he's a fucking idiot and he was right

co-ops are not violating their fiduciary

responsibility

uh just because they would there's no

guarantee that the investors are going

to get a profit back or that it's

incredibly unlikely according to you

which is already a flawed art we're

gonna get into it

they're gonna get their money back this

is a black and white issue where richard

wolff was right in context

if you mean something different when you

say fiduciary responsibility that isn't

about what it actually means legally

which is how most people bring it up and

the only reason it's relevant people

bring it up most 99 of the time

it was your job to make that more clear

instead of insulting richard wolff and

making it seem like

he's an idiot who doesn't know anything

about finance

okay so when richard wolff kept bringing

up that like when you

uh when you uh invest in a company

you're not guaranteed to return blah

blah blah

you're not okay but you

are guaranteed that the company's not

just gonna like squander your money or

totally fucking waste it

okay sure but that's an issue that

courts deal with

that's an issue courts will deal with

okay sure i don't i'm not

i'm not we're fuck the courts i'm not

talking about the court

why did you bring up fiduciary because

that's what richard wolff was talking

about

i'm talking about whether or not the

internet the whole reason why we got

into that topic was because i said

co-ops have a really hard time raising

capital empirically this is true

okay the reason why they have a hard

time raising capital is because you

don't have the same alignment of

interest

i don't think that's the reason i don't

think that's the reason but it's not

even irrelevant it is the reason

why you want me wait if you want me to

get off using the term

fiduciary responsibility that's fine we

can but i need you know

concede i need you to concede that

richard wolf was within his right to

respond to you in the way he did

because any reasonable person would have

interpreted your use of the

word fiduciary responsibility in legal

terms

so let's get that let's get that clear

richard wolff is not an

idiot he knows what he's talking about

it was really insulting

that you're making it seem like this 79

year old professor has been studying

this for decades

he doesn't know these basic things

that's not what he does okay he does not

study finance okay he wrote

a long one he studies economies in

general so he knows about this stuff

he could probably tell you specific

court cases about fiduciary

responsibility if you press

it that's why he brought up jake vague

generalities instead of citing anything

okay i'm going to tell you did you ask

him did you call him and ask him to i

know you like to scream but i'm going to

tell you for the future okay

economics and finance are not the same

thing my dude i know

destiny but listen that's in destiny

work of richard wolff or his degrees

okay

destiny destiny destiny listen listen

as it concerns matters like fiduciary

responsibility

richard wolf is going to know about

things like that because they tell us

about how the economic system

he does though he he objectively proved

he knew what it meant

and you did it he fundamentally does not

understand

because workers co-ops are not illegal

they would not be considered to be

abdicating upon their fiduciary

responsibility

according to the people actually

measuring what that means in this

country wait

why are you so obsessed with defending a

lib he's

what do you mean because i respect

richard well if he's an og out here you

disrespected him

i'm not gonna but let's let's not let's

not get distracted

why are you defending a liberal so much

okay you can i don't think he's a lib

honestly i don't

really no i don't think that says that

some socialism can involve like

a lot of private investment and free

enterprise social

chinese characteristics they're not libs

nobody thinks china is liberal

do you think china's socialist yeah why

are you pivoting though

i'm not you're the one that brought up

china no i because you talked about

whether you're private

you're the one who pivoted your destiny

you're pivoting dude wait wait where did

they go

so we can move okay before we can move

on you take the l on this

produce your responsibility business no

not at

l why are you all then let's stick to

the issue where in china

do the workers on the means of

production yeah before we can get to

this complicated stuff about workers

ownership by the way

richard if you want to know richard

since you're pivoting you conceded on

the point of fiduciary responsibility

take the out

now we're getting into uh workers who

means production according to richard

wolff's understanding of his specific

workers ownership of the means of

production sovereign control of the

workplace

he is he didn't argue that that that was

uh president in china

he explicitly stated the contrary

actually richard wolff said

that in china it's different than his

own uh

vision or model or whatever he's talking

about yeah because china's a capitalist

country yeah no richard wolf said

there's different types of socialism

play it back to

every type of economic organization is

socialism i know i heard it i remember

it i listened

okay well listen dude i know you're

trying to pivot really hard i wanted to

clear this thing up so we can get into

the issue

of whether your argument about the cost

benefit analysis or whatever the

the cost of labor is a con in direct

contradiction with the interest of the

investors

i was going to get to that point too but

you don't seem to want to concede or at

least

own up to your mistake when it came to

fiduciary responsibility because you

made a big fucking mistake dude

he was right there is no guarantee

that you're going to get a return on

your money when you invest in the stock

market

i never said there was a guarantee but

richard wool it was clear to everyone

that's what you said because

richard will pointed out there's no

guarantee when you invest in private

companies that are on the stock market

right now

it's about whether or not your interests

are aligned with the people that are

making the decisions of the company

okay that's not what you said that's not

what you said actually

okay in the debate you're saying that

now and you said that we've done it

i i welcome you to watch the five to ten

minute segment and you can try to see

what you see destiny what you said what

you said is why would

why would anyone invest in a worker

co-op when there's no fiduciary

responsibility you're not going to get

value on your

you're going to get a return on your

value on your investment that's what you

said

i i mean you do you think that do you

think that i believe that you're

guaranteed to get a return on

but that's what you said you you made a

mistake you're not admitting your

mistake

you always seem like you're an honest

guy but here you're kind of

disappointing me

okay i mean you can go back and you can

watch the whole the whole we did

we covered it like twice we did it on

stream

okay then i think that if you watched it

all it's pretty obvious what i'm saying

that

no it's pretty obvious what i'm saying

that you fucked up your richard wolff

was right

he told you look at a bunch of cases and

they will tell you

fiduciary responsibility does not mean

companies have an obligation

to return value to you they don't they

don't they have an obligation to act in

the best interest of the company yeah

but courts will interpret that

courts will not interpret that in terms

of definitely of course

no shit but they will not say that just

because you organized your workplace

differently than you abdicated upon uh

acting in their best interest

if you're investing in a co-op you know

what their their model is and you can be

informed about all of that

this is what venom's also said by the

way i don't even like denim here's the

question

yeah let's say that you're investing in

a private company let's say that they

raise money they raise 10 million

dollars

okay so you lost on the first point

point let's say that the ceo decides to

pay out

all of that new investment he gives all

the money to himself and a few workers

beneath him and they don't do anything

expansion with the money at all they

just pay it out to himself and all of

his workers what do you think would

happen

what do you think would happen if a

company that's not a co-op did the same

thing

why are you pivoting no i'm not people

i'm addressing the point directly

okay okay i'll test it directly i'll

just address it directly

the investors would take them to court

and you would get fucked okay

that's true for any other type of

company no that's not true because yes

it is

if you're a company if you're a selfish

owner of a company

forget about paying the workers what if

you just squandered all the money you

took it all yourself as the owner

it has nothing to do with co-ops you're

changing the subject it has nothing to

do with co-ops you take the l

come on you're making me feel bad take

the l okay

you look bad right now dude is that what

you think is happening right now you

just take the l yes you do look bad

right now take the l

okay well if a co-op would vote to give

themselves all the money the club would

be perfectly within their rights to do

so

no no i said if you're dealing with

would fall under some kind of

broad legal issue anybody that cares

about finance i'm just telling you that

destiny destiny destiny all of

are not the only type of businesses that

are capable of engaging in fraud under

us law

other businesses can do that too do you

think everyone was a co-op of course

obviously i don't believe that

so why are you bringing it up it's an

irrelevant point i'm bringing

up your whole confusion your confusion

stems from the fact

that you're confusing workers ownership

uh co-ops

with political sovereignty over the

workplace as though the co-op

arrangement is going to override the

laws of the country within which it

resides

most people when they talk about co-ops

don't actually mean that maybe vlosh

means that or something i don't know i

don't know who you've been listening to

but it's very bizarre that you would

make it seem like co-ops don't have to

follow the law

what's the what's the next thing okay

the next thing

you made a really stupid point if

workers are

workers are not just a cop first of all

two things right

even if workers are just a cost it is in

their interest

for these shares and for the stock value

of the

company to go up because that means that

they can compensate themselves better

and

the cost can they don't have to do that

what if they don't want to what if they

just

then they're mismanaging their business

anyone can do it but they're allowed to

do that

and destiny do not understand capitalism

anyone's allowed to do that anyone's

allowed to mismanage their business

but they can be taken to court for fraud

then pay raise and just piece the fuck

out or he would pay off all of his

fellow friends

well yeah listen no listen no advocate

of co-ops

no advocate of co-op says co-ops can be

successful

without workers making sacrifices but

they're arguing that workers will have

an incentive

to voluntarily make those sacrifices

it's not about okay so this is the

problem is you can't

and this is a common problem with a lot

of people you have a really hard time

thinking in terms of percentages or

probability or

what or what we would call it would be a

positive investment what

can i finish one sentence okay making

like a risk adjustment okay

so if i were to give money to a co-op or

i would invest money in a co-op

right the risk adjustment is going to be

way different on this because they could

i'm not saying they will now if you want

to straw me in that way and like jerk

off your audience you can do that

i'm not saying that every single fucking

co-op is going to steal the money and

run obviously that's not the case

you're screaming so much of me okay what

i'm saying though is that

the possibility for that exists and if

that happens

unlike with a privately managed firm you

have

no recourse okay okay listen if you're

if you're

investing in a co-op and they want to

just take the money and piece the fuck

out

you're fucked they can take it around

and there's nothing you can do are you

done with that yet

yeah i think i'm good okay okay good

listen let me teach you something about

capitalism destiny

it's true across the board that when it

comes to models

where there's less precedent you're

taking a higher risk by investing in

companies

where according to probability or the

past or something like that

there's not as much of a guarantee

you're gonna make a return on it that

was true for a lot of uh

disruptive and innovative companies in

the 90s and you know all that kind of

stuff

that's the nature of capitalism okay

none of this has

what you're saying is that investors

would be less likely to invest in co-ops

uh which may or may not be true but the

reasons you gave for that

for example the fact that the interest

of the workers in the co-op and the

investors

are not aligned is 100 percent

unambiguously

false i'm just curious why do you think

so many ceos are compensated in stock

today instead of but this is where

this is where you really fucked up and

this is what i wanted to do yes

i will directly yeah because i'm going

to get to the actual point

okay destiny even companies that are not

co-ops

ceos yeah i'll get to it destiny

because i don't hear the answer you can

get to say whatever you want to ramble

about yeah yeah

they yeah they do it to align the

interests of the ceo with the

shareholders but guess what

what does that mean wait wait what does

that mean i'll tell you what it means if

you let me finish you keep cutting me

off can i go

because you're about to ramble on some

other relevant no i'm not can i go can i

go can i say what i want to say

go ahead and explain that concept to me

are you done talking can i talk

yeah if you're going to okay destiny

even companies that are not co-ops

know that they had that there's ideas

and bernie even proposed this

to give workers shares of the companies

they work in

that's what most modern co-ops do

you didn't let me talk and it was so

simple wait is this lagging right now

is this what was it lagging

no what's going on i i think the i think

it lag sometimes it skips over words

because i didn't hear you answer my

question at all so i think it just cut

that part off

dude you're coping dude come on okay

hold on workers

themselves two points two points what

does it mean what does it mean to align

the interests of the shareholders with

the ceo what does that mean

it means that the ceo's gonna act in the

best interest of the shareholders which

is to maximize the value of the stock

oh now can you tell me what might be

different between that

and a co-op yeah go ahead

nothing because workers can be

compensated in shares and are in co-ops

compensated in shares

do you think that a ceo is ever

going to get a big investment and just

pay all of that out of his business

destiny destiny wait can you why can't

you just answer

okay okay there's two i'm gonna

economics okay i have one more question

for you

okay and this isn't variable capital and

constant capital

you have to make sacrifices for constant

capital not just variable capital

so even the ceo is going to say as many

random things as possible it's not

random dude why are you coping so hard

dude

take the l and i just i want to have

like a well i don't know what i want to

have right now actually but it'd be nice

to have like a coherent conversation on

the topic i thought you were on the show

off like how many things you read on

investopedia i'm just asking you some

basic questions about like

structures because like the thing is

that we can argue until we're both blue

in the face okay

what's your heavy hitter give me your

heavy hitter go ahead heavy hitters this

is like empirical evidence that like

it's really hard for cops to raise

capital

it's one of the biggest issues listen

destiny i didn't come here arguing with

you that co-ops might have a hard time

raising capital

i'm arguing with the reasons you're

giving my issues the reasons you're

giving one of the reasons why clubs have

a hard time raising capital is because

they're not seen as very lucrative

investments because you don't have the

same alignment

with the shareholders that's not why

that's not why you're making the

decisions about running yeah but that's

not why

well okay why is it then the reason is

because co-ops are an alternative form

of

workplace matters there's too many

unknowns there's not a lot of precedent

for it it's a very simple explanation

are one of those unknowns one of the

unknowns is whether it's gonna they're

gonna manage it efficiently whether it's

going to work out

whether um that non-traditional

structure of decisions that benefit the

shareholders and not just the workers

maybe but that's more vague that's more

vague in the sense of like well any

company that does that's not

do you keep coding me off why do you

keep cutting me off at all why do you

keep cutting me off

i'm just correcting you no you're not

correcting me dude the point is

of course of course if a company isn't

run well or is not successful which is

the main

bread and butter we're talking about

whether it's successful or not then yes

it's not going to align with the

interest of the shareholders

but that doesn't mean shareholders think

there's something inherent about the

co-op model

that's going to not align with their

interest because it's a cost of labor or

something

it's just because they're not certain

they're not certain of its success

in ways that they could be more certain

or more

uh have a higher sense of probability

that other models will work because

that's

the models that work and that's just

based on precedent dude that's not even

based on whether it's better or not it's

just based on precedent

okay what i don't understand is why

won't you just take the l on this topic

and let me go to the next dude

stop dude it's not cute stop coping

you're coping so hard no i'm not

dude you're coping dude

if i see i'm not even watching your chat

how's your chat doing do they admit i

won

um right now they're all huff and co

copium as well

you guys are puff um come on guys you

guys at one point you gotta admit he's

wrong

you're wrong here dude you're wrong

you're wrong about fiduciary

responsibility

and you didn't even think about the fact

that workers can be compensated in

shares it was such a bad mistake i was

dude i'd like i've watched your content

a lot wait why you don't want to

compensate workers and shares that has

nothing to do with running a co-op

fucking googling what do you mean it has

nothing to do with running a co-op how

do you think they own it

wait why don't you tell me how you think

they own it they they're they they have

shares in the company as workers

all right you didn't know that

yeah tell me more about it they're

compensated they're compensating a lot

of ways they're

they can be compensated with shares

they're also compensating wages that's

true

but that doesn't mean that they're

inherently okay hold on now we're

getting into the essay section okay

okay so destiny laughed at you when you

said co-op workers were compensating

shares what do you think is one possible

reason why destiny might find that to be

a funny statement for you to make

why i'm stupid tell me because what the

fuck is a co-op if you're compensating a

worker and a share then he sells his

fucking share

well if he sells his i don't know i mean

how would he

what is he an employee of then at that

point he has no more fucking say in

anything

it's kind of weird to look at a co-op in

terms of compensation and shares because

if you sell your fucking share now

you're just a fucking wage slave

no i'm not so sure about that because

it's not that well

okay granted okay okay granted they

don't only own the co-op probably in

terms of owning shares because you've

been yourself

on right now i want to see if you're

actually holding a physical l or if it's

just like a metaphorical come on dude

okay i misspoke they don't only own the

company in terms of

owning shares but that dude you have to

understand in co-ops they do own shares

workers do own shares well they have

like an ownership of a part of the

company but you wouldn't say

it's just strange to think of it in

terms of compensating insurance because

what if they get conversations and they

just sell it well now there's a wage

slave again right

like if you sell off your share

typically that means that you're leaving

okay i'm going to admit i honestly don't

know like

how that how specifically that works i

don't okay well i can tell you a little

bit about it if you are in a co-op

like there's different ways to organize

them but oftentimes it's like one

employee one share of the car

and that share gives them voting rights

on how like the organization is around

depending on the size of it right but

you would never if you sell your share

that means you don't work anywhere you

just leave

so what's your point what does that do

with anything

you're compensating people in shares

because that doesn't really matter but

so they're not allowed to quit

well you if you quit you're selling your

share and if you sell your share you

quit you can't sell yourself so what's

your point

my point is just saying that co-op

people get compensated to share this

kind of

okay let me be very crystal clear about

something i don't know if i misspoke

before

i did not mean to say that the only

means of their ownership over the co-op

is owning the shares let me be clear

what is that isn't that their means of

ownership what do you mean

no it's not their only it can't be their

only means of ownership because

investors also own shares and they

obviously don't exercise exactly

investors don't having non-ownership

shares in a co-op is really weird isn't

it that's

what do you mean is you mean it's like

not orthodox it's not traditional

i mean that would it would just be like

a fucking world why did you pivot dude

you pivoted from like our original point

so hard to like find one point where i

misspoke oh who cares dude i misspoke

whatever

okay go i'm sorry where were we at but

like you took the l on everything dude

from the very beginning reduce your

responsibility you took the l

because when it comes to the

misalignment of interest

the misalign okay your point about the

misalignment of interest

between investors and the workers in the

co-op is 100

false and he took the l on that can you

admit that so

when i say that there might be a

misalignment of interest between and by

the way let's see what's up

okay can you tell me what do you think i

mean by that

i think you you mean to say that just

because workers are a cost

in terms of wages and in terms of other

things that they couldn't possibly make

sacrifices for the good of a company but

the whole reason it's called

the whole reason why let me finish the

whole reason it's called a co-op is

because the people in it

are cooperatively their interests are

cooperatively invested in ensuring the

maximal success of the company

that's why it's called a co-op it's not

going to work if everyone's just selfish

as in you know

as a as a wage worker for their own

self-interest the company

then yeah why the fuck would they be a

cop why does have a private owner that

ensures the maximum success of the

company

well the reasons for the co-op model is

arg

what they would argue right is that

owners

don't have it in their interest to

benefit all of the people within the

company

there has money so it's actually not it

might not necessarily be the primary

interest of a co-op

owner to maximize success for the

company they might want to maximize

individual success and that's why they

want a greater democratic

well it could be but it's not

necessarily or even to my knowledge the

majority of the case

uh when it comes to co-ops that's the

point it could be

it could be it could be either way you

know if you don't pay your workers

and a lot of companies for example if

you don't pay your workers enough

your company is going to hurt your

company company's going to suffer if you

invest in if you don't invest in enough

if you don't

invest in enough constant capital you're

also going to suffer

sure but again those are costs of doing

business you would never try the same

thing with the co-op

same thing with a caller oh it's not a

cost you're like literally voting on

like you getting paid more that's way

different there

yeah but if you don't vote listen

destiny you don't only vote on the basis

of your

immediate individual interest you vote

on the basis of the success

of the co-op well who are you to say

that you can vote on whatever the fuck

you want to vote you can

obviously you can but then it's not

going to be successful it's not going to

work out

yeah but why do you care maybe you just

want to get a big cash out and then

leave and go work for someone else

okay well then obviously private equity

doing this all the time

are you trying to say that there has to

be a guarantee co-ops will work

because that's not true for any business

i'm not saying there's a guarantee i'm

not even saying that it's not true

that's not true for any business

of course it's that's absolutely true i

agree with you and i'm not even saying

co-ops are bad

i'm just saying that co-ops have a lot

of time raising private funding

it's a huge issue for co-op that's a

non-controversial claim it doesn't

justify all the disrespect

and what bullshit the problem is because

richard wolf won the debate

the debate wasn't about whether co-ops

have a hard time raising private best

fuck the longest was that

who had the most phds i mean to be

honest he's 79 years old he knows way

more than you you should have sat your

ass down got some education boy

i'm gonna tell you that right now you

better he did that shit for free too

i mean shit man damn we're pivoting

right now let's go back to the meat and

potatoes

i feel like if he won so hard why are

you so upset about it it seems a little

late because i'm

i'm a passionate man you know what i'm

saying look at me look at no i don't

want to do that okay

okay all right what's your next uh point

um those main two points i didn't expect

you to concede so hard on those main two

points let me see what else

what else was there oh yeah do you want

to talk about how you said

that socialism was a non-decisive factor

in the success of the ussr because you

also took the l on that

i said it wasn't necessarily a decisive

fact it was a decisive factor

the stolipin reforms which is what you

were talking about about russia's

alternative path to industrialization

was a huge fat fucking failure and by

the way the fact of sleeping being

assassinated which

many historians in fact there's so many

other countries that were organized by

capitalists like what the same

industrial reform

i'll give you the story which one yeah

from japan okay you talking about the

meiji restoration japan are you talking

about japan in the mid 20th century

which one uh japan and the mid 20th

century yeah that was the marshall plan

that was on the off of the back of the

us that wasn't any kind of independent

industrialization whatsoever

really japan doesn't get any credit for

its economy whatsoever no but it wasn't

independent

it wasn't independent it didn't need

socialism because it had the us marshall

plan that was why

how did the u.s marshall plan lead to

japan becoming one of the like leaders

are you actually going to say such a

stupid thing do you have any historians

in your community that can explain basic

history to you

why don't you tell me okay japan was

destroyed after world war ii

right its industry was completely

decimated destroyed so the marshall plan

from the u.s

pumped huge levels of investment toward

japanese interest to prop up japanese

industry and make sure that japan

has enough funds and has enough

resources to build itself back up the us

built up

japan built japan back up basically laid

the foundation for that

it's not really a controversial point at

all yeah but what was a lot of that

foundation

what do you mean what do you just say

what you want to say

um first of all i'm pretty sure the

united states uh

heavily encouraged like liberalization

of trade and everything

or standard like what we would say no it

was a combination it wasn't one or the

other there was

both liberalization and then for all the

asian tiger economies

there was heavy state intervention in

the economy it wasn't one or the other

especially not after world war ii uh

arguably after world war ii we're

talking about more of a

heavy-handed state intervention in the

economy

i mean that's what the marshall plan i i

i understand that there was like some

level of

like investment here but i don't think

that you could say it wasn't just some

level of investment it was a deliberate

plan

by the united states to construct the

post-war world order

in which germany and japan would regain

their footing

as bastions of international industry

that was a deliberate plan

i don't think that you can say like for

the few years do you know what the

bretton woods system is that's what it

is

we're talking about just the few years

that we ran the marshall plan that

that's like japan's entire economy

it was the architecture of the bretton

woods system which was a long-term plan

so i'm not just saying it was only

because of some they threw some money at

japan it was a whole plan there

how do you explain areas like hong kong

or taiwan or south korea

like all of these other areas that have

like opened up their markets to more

liberalized what you're talking about is

the the

asian tiger boom in the 70s and 80s

but that wasn't an independent

industrialization either it was also off

of the back of the brandwood system as

well

the only countries that had to develop

independently were the socialist ones

isn't that a coincidence what do you

mean by independently

um without being attached to the

anglo-american global financial system

does it count does the soviet union

count as developing independently when

they like

took over like the entire eastern bloc

to like farm for resources and shit

by that time they had already developed

in terms of what we're talking about in

terms of their industrialization they

had already

industrialized the astronomically high

rates of growth began before

a world war two was this prior to any

type of socialist uprising then like

prior to 1917

no what do you mean the ussr's

received massive help from western

countries as well like towards the end

of world war ii didn't they get big

influx

not not really decisively no especially

not after world war ii not really

decisively no

um okay

pretty sure we pump the fuck up out of

them but i don't know 100

okay all right what else going to talk

about

um yeah richard wolf won that debate

dude i'm really disappointed you didn't

take the l on that you should have taken

the l like a man he's 79 years old

there's no shame in losing to him

but he won that debate dude i just

wanted to be here to like you know

vindicate him and

i think i was pretty successful in doing

that gotcha super penicanted

dude don't take it personally dude you

don't have to win every debate you know

yeah but he did win dude he did

honestly he i'm a neutral guy dude i'm

not even like one of those co-op people

and

i was watching i was like dude you did

really bad here

okay well um

you got anything else for us um

i mean if you if you're i guess that's a

concession on your part you took the o

um yeah i mean it sounds like it all

right

and also i don't really like denims but

you should apologize to denims because

what you said was really nasty to her

and she was actually right too

what you said was super like uh it was

super mean dude it was super nasty

and she was right dude i don't like

denims but she was right in that

encounter

are you are you somebody that do you not

believe in the weaker stuff

[Laughter]

someone clipped that i'm just curious i

hear you i hear a lot of tankies argue

about it i'm just curious

where you're at okay um what do you want

what do you want to ask me about it

do you think that over 800 000 people

are being put into like

work camps or trying to have their like

religion and everything erased so that

china can move into that

xinjiang no that's a simplistic

narrative simplistic spin it doesn't

cover the complexity of the situation

okay can you cover oh do you think that

uyghurs are like more predisposed to

terrorism and everything and that's why

china was like stuffing them into camps

do you deny that there was a spike in

religious fundamentalism and extremism

in xinjiang if not

why were there so many uyghurs found in

fighting in syria among isis

i mean there were people all across

europe of course of course

with isis right but there was a

disproportionately high number of

people yeah but how many uyghurs were

found fighting for isis that

will justify the the enslavement of over

a million of them indicated well you're

no i'm i'm not saying that

over a million are being enslaved that's

what you're saying not me sure that

oh so so what do you think is the extent

of the chinese working with the uyghurs

then

let's say working what do you mean what

like what do you think is happening to

the weaker people in china do you think

that basically they're not being

enslaved they're not being put in work

camps

what are they being put in are they

being put in anything vocational

training centers

but okay are these vocational training

centers optional

um you know uh

nothing's entirely optional but it's not

it's not it's not based on

it's not based in like gunpoint coercion

no it's not what kind of coercion is it

based

on then um they're given incentives to

go

they're giving themselves to leave what

do you mean

china's own official statements

initially they said they were just well

china's released two very contradictory

statements one is they said that they

were just

vocational camps but then they've also

said that it's for people that are like

a little bit more extremist and can be

released yeah they combine

both vocational training centers for job

skills

with the radicalization uh education

it's kind of interesting don't you think

it's a little weird to pair those two

things together

not specifically like popular there's

vocational training centers all over

china and they they they can be combined

with many different ways they grab

ethnic minorities and they force them to

join otherwise

no it's a simplistic spin that's not how

it works they're not just grabbing

people

but they're not allowed to leave they're

not allowed to leave though how do you

know

well because china's own statements are

said they're not allowed to show me the

statement

show me them i mean you can if you want

i can like i don't i don't you're

talking out of your ass

okay um i'm just asking you to show me

them

show me yeah i mean i don't have this

like documented like on hand right now i

don't have like the links on if you want

to like debate bro me and go sore source

source

um you can give me a little bit and i

can try to find like those statements on

the bookmark

okay i'll give you time to wikipedia

okay sure yeah wikipedia that's where

i'm going hold on

so weird you brought up the did someone

clip that he like he pivoted right to

me this is like the last resort after

you lose to a tanki you have to bring up

like the

most exclusively controversial thing

possible it's not controversial to a lot

of people

dude china's a country with over a

billion people it's controversial for

the whole world yes it is

if you look at the list of countries

that agree with uh the whole narrative

there's gonna have something in common

compared to the countries who don't

um wait what do you mean by that

um america and its allies believe

something

there's a genocide happening and the

rest of the world doesn't it's pretty

much as simple as that

by the way dude if you think this is

going to cancel me like i say this on

stream openly all the time

i don't care don't be so conspiratorial

okay dude

you know what you're not going to read

this top to bottom but like i don't

think you're not really doing what you

think you're doing like i don't i'm

trying to do it i just wanted to know

your opinion on this i was just curious

if you'd like

i don't think there's a genocide going

on in xinjiang i don't okay but

top to bottom if you want for this

autonomous region send it to me send it

to me so i can show you

so i can yeah send it to me we can read

it if you want

okay so you have the whole mistranslated

uh dubious

oh you think this is all mistranslated

now okay well never mind i guess you

speak chinese

you speak mandarin nope do you um

no but i'm not the one making definite

claims based on this i just want to just

so just to illustrate what happened you

asked me to source your word china made

one statement and then

they have made statements about how like

yeah they prevent people from and i've

been told

i've been told these are mistranslations

but let's read it let's read it let's

write no

wait i'm curious have you ever argued

wait real quick do you think the

holocaust happened

of course okay do you are you aware that

people make the exact same statements

about like

hitler's words that things were

mistranslated and whatnot like

no okay i mean no no i mean uh it's not

comparable in this case though why is it

not comparable

because uh

german is well known is a much more

familiar language to english speakers

when

people say that hitler's totally people

say it's just a mistranslation

there must be more people on the planet

that probably speak chinese than right

but to the

but compared to english speakers we're

english speakers okay

so mandarin is a very foreign language

to us okay

uh german is comparable to us no hold on

listen okay

yeah i speak english pretty well and i

could not fucking translate german for

you all right no i know i know but for

people to say that you know everything

was just mistranslated on the part of

hitler

well germany's within the west it's

within the sphere it's we have a lot

more

in common with them culturally and

civilizationally all that kind of stuff

so if someone was just going to say oh

they mistranslated it it wouldn't be

as um bro there are convincingly more

chinese speakers in the us than people

that speak german you really yeah but

but

but destiny take the l on this dude the

german language isn't like

the german language is in latin it's the

latin matter if it's a lot it's more

related to english than manchester

united

no you that the religion so you think

germa you think german is more is more

of a difficult there's more of a

language barrier when it comes to german

than mandarin

i'm saying that the language barrier is

probably somewhat comparable

i think it's a stupid thing to say but

let's let's watch let's read it let's

read the document

well now you're just gonna say it's all

mistranslated no no we'll read it for

the sake of uh

for the sake of uh argumentation we'll

read it okay fine

yeah the title is so i'm reading the

subtitle i guess opinions on further

strengthening and standardizing

vocational skills education and training

centers work

the party political and legal affairs

commission of uh yilik kazakh autonomous

prefecture

and the party political and legal

affairs commission of all prefectures

states and cities in the combination

boxing and three battles in one war

struggle

to fight against terrorism and maintain

stability it is a strategic critical and

long-term measure to focus on free

vocational skills education and training

for key personnel

in order to thoroughly implement the

relevant decision-making arrangement of

the party committee of the autonomous

region

further strengthen and standardize the

work of the vocational skilled training

centers here are referred to as training

centers

ensure the absolute safety of the

training venue improve the quality and

efficiency of education and training

maximize education

save and protect key personnel and

promote the social stability and

long-term stability of the whole

of xinjiang based on relevant laws and

regulations and based on article 12 of

the previous guidance on education and

training we again bring up the following

opinions

first ensure that the training venue is

absolutely safe one

adhere to the comprehensive combination

of personnel defense and technological

defense to strictly implement measures

meeting requirements to prevent escape

noise earthquakes fire and epidemics it

is strictly

for police to enter the student zone

with guns and they must never allow

escapes

i know it's one it's the number two

right sure what we might as well worry

about

anyway never allowed normal deaths never

allow food safety incidents and major

epidemics and they must ensure that the

training center is absolutely safe

okay okay number two prevent escape yeah

i got it you made your point you made

your point i got it i

i'm reading it loud and clear listen two

things we have to establish right

okay we first have to establish i have

to first step is personally i can't

say just because i'm seeing this like i

have to you just gave me a picture so i

have to verify the authenticity of this

first

i i'm not saying it's wrong i'm not

saying it's uh

fake i'm not saying it's real real quick

i work i don't know if it's really not

like this but if you want you can just

google like chinese statements

on camps and like no no destiny i've

researched this extensively i've

researched this extensively this is

well this is one of the hugest points

brought up about china being

yes i know but i've i've heard i've

heard this and testimony

while you can okay i can't confirm that

it's whenever i can't confirm

if it's correct or false i just play the

devil after that's correct

so that works more productively for us

right um okay i mean like this is like a

pretty big thing so it's weird when you

say yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

so so um so okay even okay

let's assume that you're not allowed to

leave right

i don't know that i still don't know

that right but let's just assume you're

not allowed to leave

i'm gonna need a little bit more than

just one document

because we have had pres and this is

what i was trying to get to in the

beginning there have been cases in the

past

where documents not saying this specific

one but documents

have been mistranslated and some have

argued have been forged because

the writing of the mandarin seemed like

it was translated from english

um i've seen cases like that before okay

okay well here you know what if you want

you can go and read through this whole

yeah yeah okay okay let's just assume

you're not allowed to leave though let's

just assume

okay okay let's just assume you're not

allowed to leave now from our

perspective living in america right yeah

this seems like it's slavery it's the

same as a detention because

you're not allowed to do it right but

the way chinese society

works is that nothing is fully voluntary

in general nothing is

i guess the best but it's a bad example

because you're obviously a child but

school isn't voluntary in america right

so in china the way their society works

there's a lot of things

that just aren't voluntary uh that

people go through but that doesn't mean

that they're being enslaved or they're

being you know rounded up

view it what's that how do you think the

uyghurs themselves

you would have that would be something

that uyghurs themselves would

and they've interviewed we've

from what i know the western media has

portrayed only a one-sided story

of individual uyghurs coming out and

saying many things by the way which were

demonstrably false um would you deny

that

just so we can move forward i'm sure

somebody is uttering okay okay good we

can establish that

um but they haven't actually shown the

other the many uyghurs who

don't view it that way how do you think

the japanese and the us felt about

japanese internment camps during world

war ii

it was horrible i'm not even saying why

is it horrible maybe there's just

another view in america we're very

listen destiny i'm not i'm not even

saying that i think

it isn't horrible for uyghurs that

they're going they have to be forced

into vocational training since whatever

maybe they do experience it as well you

made it sound like you made it sound

like no no

no maybe they do experience it as

horrible but that's different from

saying there's a genocide going on or

they're banning islam and china it's

just not

true well it's a cultural genocide so i

mean

how is it a cultural genocide because

the goal is to erase like the uyghur

culture and to integrate

no it's not it's not it's not the

islamic fundamentalism

that came in the 90s has nothing to do

with uyghur culture it was from saudi

arabia and the gulf states

has nothing to do with uyghur culture

part of the documents that have been

released

show chinese officials targeting people

for stuff related to being religious so

like they've got a whole point system

for how they bring you out into these

yes yes yes but this

but this religion this the religiosity

that they're talking about the religious

extremism

is not indigenous to xinjiang it was

imported from saudi arabia in the gulf

states and that's where it came from

and first of all these people are this

is like a fully autonomous region in

china but you're saying it's cultural

genocide how can they be engaging in a

cultural genocide when it's not part of

uyghur culture

because their goal is to dewigarize them

right no it's not it's not it's profound

it is profusely not the case that

they're trying it is absolutely the case

they want these people to come out as

modern chinese citizens and to not

resemble any of these so

china is a china has always been a

multi-ethnic civilization which they are

chinese

some of your ethnicities and you shove

them into into camps in order to make

them turn out to be a certain way i

think most people listen when you're

using this language camps you are trying

to invoke the holocaust it's not what's

going on

i even i even specifically there didn't

say concentration camp okay i

specifically didn't say that you can

call them whatever you want they're

vocational training centers

they're down there a lot of people are

listening you have people throw links at

you all the time i got people throwing

new links i'm not even going to look at

vocational okay no option to leave

and it's not just vocational because

when you say vocational that implies

just job training

they're training them how to be chinese

citizens not just how to work a job

in in almost so what

so that's i mean it's kind of like a

cultural genocide it's a little weird

bro

no it's not a cultural genocide what

would you what do you think they want

there to be cultural uyghurs

you could get away with calling it a

form of assimilationism

assimilationism it's not a genocide

aggressive like non-compliant people

kicked out or killed like

assimilationism

who's killed well i if you don't comply

there's escalating let me tell you

something destiny let me tell you

something about this family if you let

me

let's see just i'm gonna i want to give

you perspective about something i want

to give you perspective about something

since you're an american you're talking

about china right

the year 2017 saw the biggest spike of

arrests of uyghurs in xinjiang

2017 it was about 200 000 okay

in america in that same year okay

you had somewhere in the ballpark of

two i forget you one either 2.8 million

yeah 2.8 million arrests

of black people and their proportion and

in terms of population

are very comparable so that's 10 times

more people being arrested in america

based on their ethnicity than in china

at the height at the height the height

of the arrest

the most aggressive push which was 2017.

do you think that there might be a

difference between us having a system

that has created certain socioeconomic

factors that lead to black people being

arrested do you think that might be

different than a top-down order from a

single-party ruling government to

explicitly capture

and de-like muslimize

what does them being a single party have

to do with it and no they're not

de-muslimizing anyone yeah

they absolutely are they're trying to no

they're not literally they're literally

the chinese line you're not even getting

the propaganda line right you're

doing no the line is basically that this

type of islam is foreign to china and

there's an original

first of all hold on it's the xinjiang

autonomous region okay yeah

these people have been here for like

hundreds of years okay they've been part

of china for just as long too

sure okay but they've been in that

region for hundreds of years which was

part of china for just as long

but it's not like they just appeared

there and now china's trying to get rid

of them they've been there for a long

fucking time

they're part of china they have al

they've been part of china since

time for as long as when did that

autonomous region even join chinese rule

i bet the muslims have probably been

there longer

i don't know the exact date for that for

that for that region joining

it's somewhere in the ballpark of

hundreds and hundreds of years ago

so it's it's a long time dude it's a

long time

it's it's long enough to be part of

historical china i'll tell you that

there's never been an independent state

in xinjiang called east turkestan

never

i don't know if they were part of china

and some other form before this but this

is the incorporation of xinjiang into

the people's probably trying to happen

in 1949

part of the people's republic of china

yeah that's when the state was founded

what's your point

sure so when when did they when were

they captured by whatever came prior to

that i don't know it was like the king

dynasty or whatever

no it was before

xinjiang has been part of historical

china it's not really controversial

uyghur nationalist historians now this

is coming from wikipedia so this might

be cia propaganda

uighur nationalist historians and the

people of republic of china the united

states posted that the uyghur people

are millennia old and can be divided

into four distinct phases the first one

originates from 300 to

300 bc to 638 okay sounds like they've

been there for quite a while

what's your point maybe okay let's say

they've been there for a million years

my point is i don't know if it's okay

for china to just move in

and say like okay well time for you guys

to drop no it's destiny chinese citizens

now

china didn't just move in they've been

part of china for long enough for it to

be considered part of historical china i

mean china didn't always exist

there was uh at one point on the earth

neanderthals roam the earth

it doesn't mean every historical

boundaries of every state are

illegitimate

because it they didn't exist forever you

know

okay i'm just curious then do you think

that if you were under chinese rule

everything do you think it's okay what

they're doing

to the uyghurs you think what do you

mean okay i said like is it like a

morally acceptable thing to do it's like

from what perspective from what

standpoint japanese perspective

from the chinese one how about from an

international perspective

i that's where you lost me international

means international perspective means

nothing

do we think that there should be any

title you can't you cannot put yourself

in a position of judging

these countries from an international

perspective when you know nothing about

especially when you

especially when you come from america

and it's a country as different as china

because you don't really know anything

about china okay so then my question is

do you think that we should have

any type of internationally guiding

moral principles whatsoever or no

um uh it's tough to say it's tough to

say because i don't know what you mean

by that

okay let's say hypothetically let's say

that germany decided to pass a decree

saying that all men can rape all women

whenever they want to decide is that

something that internationally

why don't we just use the example of the

persecution of something that actually

happened the german no

i actually like this example do you

think that that's something that

internationally we should criticize or

we should say well

germany gets to run german's nation i

think we would consider that to be

barbaric we'd be

we'd consider it to be highness and why

why why but then

but then what if uh what if uh infrared

nine whatever the german version of

yours comes out okay and he says like

well hold on you can't judge germany

by your own standards okay it's their

own country there's a whole lot of

history you don't understand that how

would you argue with him

because it would be very easy to point

out that even by those german standards

unless germans come from outer space

that this is something

that even germans themselves

overwhelmingly would probably consider

barbaric and highness

it sounds like you don't have a good

faith belief in the humanity of others

you think people would just

accept these outlandishly and

outrageously horrific things to happen

to them

i mean the holocaust happened didn't it

of course yeah

but um tournament camps in the u.s

happened didn't they

yeah but here's the thing

um when the holocaust happened it's not

just that

it's not only that you know it wasn't

just americans and all these people

who said this was a disgusting barbarism

first of all

the people who suffered it the

overwhelming majority of jews if not

almost

all jews recognized this as a highness

and barbaric act

all of europe came to recognize it as a

highness and barbaric

act including within germany uh the

eastern european countries within which

the holocaust was

um yeah the victims of these things

generally do recognize it as being

pretty shitty not only the victims but

with

black and united within within these

listen within

the territories within the historical

places in which they occurred

everyone considered them fucked up and

horrific they weren't it's not like

everyone was a barbarian and that you

know you had to have uh

american ngos saying this was horrific

and barbaric

the overwhelming majority of people um

considered it that especially when it

was revealed especially when the gas

chambers and all that was revealed to

the world and what the point of this

insight

sure i agree with you but what are you

trying to say

it doesn't justify uh some kind of uh

interesting statement

it doesn't justify uh american moral

universalism it doesn't i'm not talking

an american moral universalism i just

that's inevitably what moral

universalism in the context of the

present world is

i just broadly asked you a question i

just asked you if you thought there was

any type of universal moral standard

okay if we mean just by that

then yes but i also like murder is wrong

or rape is wrong yes but no matter where

it happened but if you

if you are confident enough for it to be

a moral universal you also have to have

the confidence

that most people if not a huge

significant

portion of people within the particular

uh

territory in which the immorality is

happening we'll also experience it

this way it's not like we are superior

next do you think that the majority of

uyghurs think that what's happening to

them is okay or acceptable but they're

not appalled by it

i don't know i don't know okay well here

is a question if the majority of them

are okay for it why is it that chinese

camps need to ban escapees

um what do you mean why do they have to

take such great links to make it well

it's not

that's not even a good argument because

hypothetically if you double that what

if only a minority you want to escape

you know i guess it just i mean like it

seems like the other wikis would like

bully them into staying or something

they all thought that they were like on

some righteous mission to be there

whatever

not necessarily it's not necessarily

true what if what if uh they just don't

want to escape they're not necessarily

committed to forcing others to say they

just themselves don't want to

why do you think china keeps everything

it's doing under wraps so much they ban

china keeps almost every aspect of what

its national security underwraps and for

very good reason because the us is on

its back and the us is committed

to um the balconization of china the cia

admitted that

so okay so that's why they leave out

okay i mean like you've conveniently

like set it up so then like they can

literally do anything you're the one who

brought up uyghurs dude i didn't bring

out i want to talk about richard wolff

you brought up weavers if you know what

i'm talking about

i want to talk about i'm not forcing the

conversation no i'm just trying to move

to you

i'm just trying to prove to you i'm not

scared to talk about anything i'm not

scared to talk about anything

it's not a fucking dick waving but but

no it is that

destiny it is that because after you

took the l of on richard wolf

you tried to own me with this whole

uyghur business i'll talk about it too

if you want to talk about it

because people say that you like dodging

around the issue and i've heard that

i've never dodged the issue i've always

been forthright about it

where have i dodged support the fucking

wigard camps or whatever you'll make

arguments

when did i say i support anything i'm

saying there's not a i'm saying there's

no reason to think

there's no reason to demonize china and

say chinese are in china is engaging in

a genocide

it's complete slander it's complete

bullshit all right well this is one of

the reasons why i wanted to debate wolf

is because i think that using the

socialist tag is cancer because you

unironically okay you want to talk about

that too

we can talk about anything i'll tell you

why you need to use the word socialism

actually like fucking yeah like gentile

apologia i think it's like really fucked

up but so you're denying the black

genocide in america

yes i don't think it's the same thing

well that's where you're gonna find

you're gonna find yourself fucking up

because

whatever you can say about what's going

on in china it's nowhere near the level

of persecution faced by black people in

america

nowhere near america has the number one

incarceration rate in the entire fucking

world

okay doesn't even come close when it

comes to china doesn't even come close

can you show me where in the united

states it is illegal to be black and if

you're caught being black then a

an authority of the state will take you

and ship you off into a camp until

you're it's not illegal to be weaker in

china whatsoever

okay you know did you know that the

height of arrests was in 2017 and i was

only

200 thousand how many uyghurs are there

tens of millions

if you exhibit a lot of traits that make

you seem

pretty weaker pretty muslim they will

take you no

no if you exhibit traits

if you exhibit traits that probably

imply

that you are being radicalized by

foreign uh salafism

then it's going to be the chinese

propaganda line that's what you're

giving

yes you're giving me the chinese

propaganda line but that's the fact of

the matter

china has nothing against islam in china

islam has been in china almost from the

very beginning some of the oldest

mosques in the world are in china

and now they want to move into that

region to the northwest there's a

fuck ton of rare earth metals it has a

lot of fucking oil it's got a lot of

energy there

we don't need to do this to do that

xinjiang is part of chinese sovereign

territory so they don't need to

it's easier to remove all these people

and do no that's not

why they no no let me tell you something

do you think they're doing all of it

just to get rid of terrorists

more or less they're doing it because

they consider it a huge national

security concern they're trying to

engage in preventative measures

potentially up to two million people in

these vocational camps is because

they're worried about you can say two

million

i don't you just say a hundred thousand

now i've heard listen

let me tell you why this is not a fair

uh thing you're talking about because on

the one hand there's an

overwhelmingly large propaganda effort

on the side of the west

which is filtering every a lot of things

selectively that are coming from china

an extremely different in foreign

country

and you're just out here saying

basically oh yeah i just have to go on

google and i'll find so you will find

you i'll be on the first results on

google of course it is

but that's because there's a

concentrated effort to balconize china

it doesn't just

come from google right i'm not saying

that i'm saying

obviously most did you literally just

did no i'm saying

most i'm saying you're going to have an

easier time

finding shit that's going to support

people that reported on leaked materials

coming out of china one was the new york

times

now you can say that all of that fake

news tia if you want because i know you

will

but the other are the international

conservative investigative journalists

these are the people that published the

panama papers right these people will

publish a lot of compromise materials

the panama papers

were not the panama papers were

overwhelmingly against

the oligarchs in russia and the enemies

of a lot of it was against the united

states as well yeah but

it was worth it it was worth it for them

it was worth it for them

it was worth it for everyone else okay

you're like the conservative girl i just

talked to

jesus fuck the bro

you know what i think happened yeah

i think that cell phones fucked us hard

because i think what used to happen was

there was a whole bunch of

crazy fucking people that like believed

in ufos and bigfoot and all the shit

but now that we have cell phones yeah

but destiny

and now that all of that stuff is gone

well where the fuck do all the crazy

destiny here's the thing here's the

thing yeah yeah but here's the thing

i will i would concede to you yeah i

would concede to you that i'm just a

crazy conspiracy theorist

if it wasn't for the fact that china is

a country with over a billion people

halfway across the world

with a completely different worldview

and that i think if you talk to more

chinese people

and you got more of the perspective that

prevails within china

you wouldn't be so adamant in asserting

that the propaganda push being pushed in

the west

is objective and uh indisputable true to

the point where if you would

if you display any skepticism of it

whatsoever

you're a crazy ufo like what i'm saying

is not crazy for chinese people exact

same thing okay

but for chinese people it's not crazy so

the conservative lady she would say

well these crazy people way on the far

left they're going way too far and i

agree with her i was like okay sure but

then

you have to do the total opposite and

now you're giving me the same line for

that you're saying like these

crazy people publish propaganda about

eastern countries and you know what they

probably do something

in fact there's been times in democracy

no no destiny but you have to take up

the most

country position possible no no destiny

you just stopped like wait wait wait

wait

you just talked about an international

perspective

most of the world does not agree with

your perspective about china the world

absolutely maybe not about

the english-speaking world does the

english-speaking world does but guess

what

america and its allies are not the

majority of people on this earth

okay we do believe that there are some

like international consensuses on some

things like we want to avoid thinking

it's the american consensus by what

metric can you say there's an

international consensus

even even the blackest people in africa

that are as anti-americans possible

still want good health care and not to

die to disease i think

there are some universal things that we

know you know okay but african countries

don't think there's a uyghur genocide

going on

i'm just saying that there are some

topics that internationally

we probably all feel the same so who's

going to verify that concern

during childbirth we probably want

access to things like vaccines

if that's true and i agree with you it

is true you don't need to have america

be the arbiter of international

consensus because that would be

organically manifest within the

particular territories

over which you want to ex over which

this has relevance seems like we build

these hierarchical structures over the

world and america sits at the top right

now if it wasn't america it'd probably

be someone else

i disagree with that i don't i disagree

with that i don't think american union

polarity

is structurally tenable for any power

you're the history guy here and i'm not

so tell me has there ever been

stable points in human history where

empires existed that were actually

actually your empires exist yeah but

there has never been a unipolar empire

over the entire world there's never been

that started with the

political reality more probably reality

of like technology destiny the the world

view the site the idea of a world like

an international order

is something very recent in human

history because it's only been recently

technologically enabled

it's not just because of technology

there's other reasons but my point is

probably primarily there is no

historical precedent which suggests

there's no there is no historical

precedent which suggests

global empire if it takes you two

fucking months to sail across an ocean

to reach the new world

okay that's that was one of the

corresponding factors but it wasn't the

only one there was a lot of other things

too

okay but even before that you had

empires that span the british empire the

roman empire the mongols like yeah okay

you just you just meant you just

mentioned too many the british yes the

british and the american this is the

global international order as we know

the british were global before they even

knew what the fucking globe was

what do you mean are you sure about that

were they not the british empire comes

after

the new world is discovered right well i

mean am i wrong about that i don't know

you know what it's possible that i'm

wrong because you know what i suck with

history but i know that there were a lot

of countries that were fighting in

europe prior to the discovery of

americas

for territory so the world for them was

europe that was the world for them

there was no wait a second my history

sucks who sailed and discovered the new

world

it wasn't the british

who what were they called then is this

your question

no i legitimately don't know who lived

in the island of great britain what did

those people call themselves

were they all or the people who

discovered the new world i don't know

what you're talking about

what do they call themselves the british

yeah what are you trying

they didn't discover the new world well

no but there were empires that existed

in europe

prior to the discovery of the new world

no

so okay i don't know what's your point

they weren't global empires because they

didn't there was no international order

they were confined

didn't they did they not think they were

relatively global at the time that was

my goal

right like i'm sure they were like the

fucking with the spanish empire whatever

well i mean um

i'm sure that i'm sure that they

considered the extent of the world to be

europe but that doesn't mean there was

international order because in reality

europe was not the world

sure but i don't think they knew that at

the time no they did know that at the

time they didn't make the pretence to

the

actual international order they were

confined to their local

circumstances that weren't all of these

nations initially like

highly imperialistic like if they

thought yes they encompassed vast

territories they were highly expensive

and if they discovered any type of new

fucking island or any type of new

fucking peninsula or anything anywhere

did they all fucking sail but there

wasn't there wasn't any international

order

at that time but what wasn't that like

the goal wasn't that why they fought

over territories and shit

it was not no it was not for the global

in this

modern relevant sense of the word like

every single part of the earth no it

wasn't

okay i mean there's no precedent in

history that suggests that the unipolar

american system

is inevitable it's not there's no

precedent in history suggesting that

so what do you think would happen if the

u.s stepped down as like the world

i think there will uh likely be some

kind of multi-polar

arrangement some kind of multi-polar

world

isn't that arguably could you argue we

have that now with the us and china

it's happening it's happening

okay is there any other like uh

gotchas you want to throw at me besides

the wiggers i'm not trying to guide you

i'm just asking questions you didn't

have to talk about the weaker shit at

all

all right um

well i don't think there's a genocide

going in in xinjiang i have no reason to

believe that i think it's a form of

demonization and racism toward china and

it's an unwillingness to learn and

humble yourself

to the fact that china is a completely

different civilization uh it's a

completely different culture completely

different people

and if you want to know about china you

have to humble yourself

to talk to chinese people they're

undergoing the

the uh the vocational training yeah that

they have no choice the non-optional one

the fourth one do you think that most of

them look all non-western societies have

a different view of choice and voluntary

but

this doesn't mean it's the same thing as

rounding we and

forcing them at gunpoint if they were to

make that maybe if they were i don't

even know if it's true or not i'm just

arguing with the devil that be at this

point

but it's possible that it is not fully

voluntary but nothing is fully voluntary

in

uh nothing is fully voluntary in any

society it's just in the west we pretend

it's voluntary

do you think well okay never mind i i'm

gonna ask

do you think that all forms of

non-voluntary are the same because

you're hardcore equivocating and you

know they're not the same but i don't

there's no point in it no i don't but

i'm just saying

uh just know what your equivocation why

would you say something like that like

oh

say what i'll give you some example of

how chinese society works

in chinese society right it's not just

you're an

abstract individual adam who has a

completely free choice

you first i understand that there might

be a difference between east and west

organization of how

we're fitting into our country but i

don't think that there is a way

where you can make that so that uighurs

are like yeah i totally understand

listen i am not

prepared to deny that uyghurs

uh may be repressed in china forcibly

assimilated maybe they feel this way

i genuinely don't know enough

but well okay hold on yeah before you

took a way

stronger statement on that you said that

there was no genocide happening not a

genocide exactly because

i don't think china is doing anything

exceptionally

repressive or doing anything barbaric

in xinjiang by any modern standards it's

a way to demonize

china it's a form of orientalism and

it's a way to portray china as this evil

other uh and mystify and orientalize it

as a asiatic

despotism or something it's a complete

uh negation and

uh complete uh refusal and rejection

to open oneself to the fact that these

people

chinese people have a completely

different society completely different

culture and you have to learn from it

you can't just impose your

perspective i think what's happening to

blacks in the u.s is okay then would you

say that

just our culture our perspective no no

of course not wait why is that not okay

who said anything about okay either way

i'm just saying the fact of this

happening in the u.s means

you have no right to sensationalize

something going on in china

when you have nothing to stand upon

you're an american

how can you say china is engaging in a

genocide

as if it's the next nazi germany when

the same thing's happening

in the society you live in which you

consider normal and you experience as

normal i don't think the outcome of a

system

that might have some but you experience

it as your normal

sane reality i can criticize both

without even

okay you criticize the american one but

you still experience

america as sane normal in your everyday

life

you don't know that you don't you don't

make a boogie man of america

you're not out here making a boogie man

of america

all the time on the left we talk about

how fuck the criminal justice system is

for black people

yes but get yes guess what leftists talk

about this shit all the time but

at the end of the day this is the

society that they were born in this is

the society that ultimately makes sense

to them

this is the society that ultimately

they're familiar with

china is a completely different society

that works in a country

i am not denying chinese society has

problems

but just like how it is in america the

problems in china

are problems for the people living there

the problems in america are problems for

the people living here

my issue is that people are denying

chinese people even even exist

as their own type of civilization rather

than like

everything whenever anyone brings up

china holy how tall are you

why are you gonna get a huge reach

because you're you're really reaching

there bro

every time someone brings up china in

any type of way

why do you keep pivoting so hard of

these like people hate chinese trump

said the chinese virus

i didn't say anything about trump why

are you talking about any of this other

shit well i'm i was asking like a very

simple point of question about like the

weaker stuff going on and you're giving

me all this fucking these diatribes like

well what about black people getting

arrested in america like damn

i'm saying you don't have you don't have

you don't have a right to critique china

you don't you absolutely do of course

you know you don't you don't write the

critic

when you want you can't take anybody but

you're a hypocrite when you do it

you're a hypocrite because you're a

hypocrite when you do it okay

unless you can simply say maybe china

has its own where do you if we're going

by strict debate tactics

being a hypocrite is not in fact a

logical fallacy one can still be destiny

destiny exactly correct

destiny destiny you

are a guy who's pro establishment probe

you're for the american government

that exists right works on that what's

that do you have a source on that well

you wanna you voted for biden but you

wanted people to vote for by i want you

to link me a video of me saying i voted

for biden what way

okay i'm wrong i think that's what i

thought my bad my bad i'll tell you

listen unlike you that's the right i can

admit when i'm wrong about things i just

want you to like me a source on that

that's all i want

i don't have one i don't have one i

didn't say that i was right or wrong

i've done a lot of research into this

and i just don't know

so i'm just asking if you can link me a

video i can't link you a video i

i'm just it was brought to my attention

it's the extent of my familiarity that

you're

kind of you were pro biden in the

general

okay well you're gonna have to take the

l on that one chief oh you you're a pro

trump or you didn't want to vote at all

you don't have a source for me so no i i

i

am i wrong i'm talking to the source

himself it's your job to tell me if i'm

right or wrong am i wrong my job

anything that's a very

eager sense i'm talking to the source

right now i'm not i'm not i'm not making

a claim

but i'm talking to you now am i wrong or

right thank demonic rights we have in

the united states the privacy of the

vote and you're demanding it from me

okay uh it's kind of pathetic dude you

take the l on this

both the richard wolf issue and now the

uyghur issue you take the l

is that what i'm doing right now yes

okay

i have 600 views right now dude that's

the most i've ever had

that's crazy well drama's working so you

did take the

identified deniers in your chat man it's

good glad they've always called me that

i don't care i walked so that you guys

could run

right to the genocidal denial forums but

dude they've always called us that

that's not new

the only difference now is i have 600

viewers

crazy all right well hey listen it's

been fun

all right you take the o you lost that

yeah when are you gonna go fight with

wash again

oh whenever whenever he grows some balls

dude we're gonna have that round two if

he grows some balls i think he's too

scared though

okay he's scared dude just like he's

he's gonna see this he's gonna be scared

as fuck

i took down his daddy you know like

you're the original guy

yeah well listen try not to i want to

ask you so badly about

do you think do you think people

exaggerate the tiananmen square thing

too

um yes that is also distorted to a great

extent in the west

and i know chinese people who tell me as

much gotcha all right

do you know any chinese people who who

live in china and i'm taking nail on

that one too okay

okay i got more than i can hold right

now so i gotta take out and go i gotta

piece on go boxes

okay thank you for uh platforming me and

giving me 600 views

i'll get a lot of stuff tonight be

careful it thank you bye