BadEmpanada is an Australian YouTuber and livestreamer. While he is known for creating commentary videos on political topics and covering political news from a left-leaning perspective, he has garnered a certain level of infamy in various online circles due to his tendency to engage in severe harassment and doxing campaigns against individuals he disagrees with.
Despite BadEmpanada's onstream appearances with Destiny being quite limited, the two are not on cordial terms. This mutual disdain stems from a fundamental dislike of one another's content and political opinions, which infrequently boiled over to social media.
Upon hearing of BadEmpanada's attempts to incited harm against during his trip to Israel.BadEmpanada to his Super Blacklist after BadEmpanada
As of March 5, 2024, BadEmpanada has been placed on Destiny's super blacklist following his attempts at inciting harm towards LonerBox.[1]
On Stream discussion with Destiny WIP
Defining colonialism, discussing historical claims to land
BadEmpanada Debates Destiny For Prof Flowers, Infrared Haz Jumps Into Twitch Chat
On February 13, 2022 BadEmpanada held a brief but cordial discussion with Destiny on colonialism.[2] The crux of the debate primarily centered around the concept of rightful land ownership, and the practical implications of decolonization. Destiny being of the position that conversations on colonialism and decolonization often become "unactionable" due to the focus on historical grievances that lack clear, practical solutions in the present day. He contends that if a nation settles on a land long enough(e.g. through conquest/war), they essentially become the owners of that land, and that the time since displacement would determine the moral "rightness" of any decolonization attempts.
Conversely, BadEmpanada argues that practical solutions to modern day colonization can exist in a myriad of ways, and that Destiny is simply unfamiliar with the concept or in fear of being removed by some indigenous population. Destiny responds by accusing BadEmpanada of engaging in a dialogue tree, and asserts he has not given a single indication that he is concerned about anyone attempting to expel him from the country.
Timestamps: Defining colonialism, discussing historical claims to land
2:07 Destiny explains the two forms of colonialism: cultural(e.g. exporting western-centric views across the world) and economic(e.g. exploitative trade deals).
2:52 BadEmpanada argues that Destiny is using a more adapted form of the word "colonialism".
5:57 BadEmpanada argues that anybody fighting against colonialism is unambiguously in the moral right. Destiny asks what BadEmpanada means by "fight against" that. BadEmpanada explains the example of the fight against apartheid in South Africa.
7:43 Destiny argues that BadEmpanada's example seem more like a fight against unjust-oppression rather than colonialism. BadEmpanada argues that unjust-oppression is a factor of colonialism, Destiny responds that this is a weird way to frame the situation.
8:53 BadEmpanada provides his definition of colonialism, and describes it as a social relation between two groups: Settler Colonialism( The establishment of permanent settlements by a colonizing group that dominates the original inhabitants, often through assimilation, extermination, or subjugation), and Extractive Colonialism (Colonization primarily aimed at exploiting resources for the benefit of the colonizer's home country).
10:10 BadEmpanada argues that Settler colonialism creates two distinct groups of people: Indigenous individuals and colonizers. He argues that the colonizers see the indigenous population as a problem that requires some sort of a solution(assimilation, extermination, deportation, apartheid). Destiny questions what the relevance of this is in the context of western world events. BadEmpanada responds it's relevant at different levels.
12:20 BadEmpanada provides Nazism as an example of colonialism, Destiny Nukes his chat. BadEmpanada attempts to jump to another hypothetical, and Destiny insists they remain on the current example regarding colonization in Europe.
14:12 Destiny provides the example of Hitler conquering a ton of land under Nazi Germany. Destiny describes how the population of that region may attempt to take that land back, and then that prior population may decide to reconquer the land. Destiny then questions how one would determine who originally owned that piece of land. Badempanada rejects this and argues that this is not typically how colonization works as cultures fuze together over time. He provides the example of someone taking land from Poland, and how nobody truly resided in the region before those people.
15:05 Destiny takes issue with BadEmpanada's example, and questions BadEmpanada's claim that nobody else would try to claim ownership over Poland besides the Poles. He points to the Celts and Sarmatians. BadEmpanada argues that Celts don't exist anymore, Destiny questions if any group of people describes themselves as Celts anymore. Destiny points to people in Scotland and Ireland who consider themselves to be Celtics, and argues that they could consider themselves to have more of an original claim over the land than Polish people.
17:02 BadEmpanada argues that he is not referring to "some random ancestral claim" but rather people who still exist in the region and are being forced out. He goes on to argue that individuals who existed two-thousand years ago that one chooses to identify with do not deserve consideration. Destiny asks BadEmpanada if he believes individuals who have been culturally genocided do not deserve a claim to the land. Bad Empanada responds in the affirmative .
17:31 Destiny asks BadEmpanada "How many people have to be bred out of indigenous Native American populations for them to no longer have a claim to the land?" BadEmpanada accuses Destiny of going for random gotchas rather than engaging with the discussion. The cordiality of the call degrades from there.
18:22 Destiny attempts to recount their disagreement up until this point: BadEmpanada claimed There are distinct groups of people possessing a certain culture that can be traced back to owning a certain land or being from a certain area. Destiny questioned what would be done to people with a distant genetic ancestral tie to the land, BadEmpanada responded that he is not talking about genetic ties to the land but rather some cohesive cultural element in the area. Destiny concludes by remarking that Celtic people, while having a genetic tie the land, do not possess a cultural tie.
19:13 BadEmpanada remarks that Celtic people do not exist today as they've been integrated so broadly into other cultures, and therefore do not deserve a cultural consideration in the scope of colonization. Destiny then questions if Celtic people would be able to claim they've been a victim of cultural genocide. Bad Empanada responds that they could, but no action could realistically be taken at this point. Destiny remarks that this is precisely his point, that these conversations on colonialism and decolonization often become "unactionable" because they focus on historical grievances that lack clear, practical solutions in the present day.
20;19 BadEmpanada accuses Destiny of being unfamiliar with the terms presented, and provides another hypothetical: Russia takes all of Ukraine except one city. Would that one Ukrainian city have a moral claim to what was taken from them? Destiny responds that an issue of a "matter of time" changing the moral claim. BadEmpanada then asks: If Nazi Germany had conquered Eastern Europe, would it be there's after 200 years? Destiny responds in the affirmative, BadEmpanada questions the optics of Destiny's claim.
21:29 Destiny argues that BadEmpanada's hypothetical describes the entirety of European history. BadEmpanada responds that "just because things are does not mean they're how things should be."
22:18 BadEmpanada explains that people frequently have the reaction that they feel like they're going to be kicked out when he has this conversation. Destiny responds by accusing BadEmpanada of engaging in a dialogue tree, and asserts he has not given a single indication that he is concerned about anyone attempting to expel him from the country.
Discussing Israel
During the conversation BadEmpanada points to the Israeli Palestinian conflict as a region with a relatively uncomplicated solution to colonization. He contends that decolonization in Israel would not involve kicking every Jew out of Israel, but rather creating one state where everyone has equal rights, and stolen land is returned where easily traced. Destiny rejects the practicality of this notion, and argues this would be incredibly complicated to implement. He points to a recent dispute wherein both sides of a minor land dispute in the region were able to trace their ties to a particular plot of land fairly far back in time.
Upon further deliberation, Destiny eventually argues that the goal when taking over a land would be to kill as many people as possible so they lose the right to it under BadEmpanada's prescription. BadEmpanada responds that there's no "right" to any side of this discussion, and that they're just speaking in terms of abstract subjective morality. At this point, Destiny decides to steer the conversation towards colonization in the perspective of modern day America.
Timestamps: Discussing Israel
22:54 BadEmpanada explains that decolonization in Israel would not involve kicking every jew out of israel, but rather creating one state where everyone has equal rights, and stolen land is returned where easily traced. BadEmpanada describes this as a relatively uncomplicated solution to a modern day colonization issue. Destiny rejects this notion and argues this would be incredibly complicated to implement, pointing to a recent dispute wherein both sides of the conflict were able to trace their ties to the land fairly far back in time to discern who had ownership over the land.
24:04 BadEmpanada explains that large settler colonial states frequently have a problem after moving in and writing documents claiming ownership of land. He explains that the "indigenous" population would also have documentation claiming ownership, which would now be deemed obsolete. Destiny confesses to not knowing too much about the conflict, but argues the area has been fought over for thousands of years and has trouble believing that Israel was merely writing themselves notes of ownership.
25:32 BadEmpanada recounts the history of Israel. Israel had several Jews 2000 years ago, as a result of antisemitism and other reasons, these Jews dispersed across the region and to Europe. BadEmpanada ties this to the current conversation: if a group left a place 2000 years ago, and came back 2000 years later, it would be ridiculous for the group to claim ownership of the land. He provides the example of a Native American leaving the USA, then coming back to Europe after 500 years claiming they owned the land.
26:25 BadEmpanada describes the return of Jews to Israel as people claiming off the basis of religious mythology that they're the rightful owners of the land.
26:53 Destiny argues that under BadEmpanada's prescription, the goal when taking over a land would be to kill as many people as possible so they lose the right to it. BadEmpanada argues that there's no "right" to any side of this, and that they're just speaking in abstract subjective morality. Destiny contends that BadEmpanada was attempting to make a moral justification for certain groups of people to lay claims to certain lands earlier. BadEmpanada argues that one could apply this logic to anything, and provides the example of killing all Germans after after World War 2.
Colonialism and modern day America, call conclusion
Timestamps: Colonialism and modern day America, call conclusion
27:36 Destiny questions how one could apply BadEmpanada's colonoliaist framework to modern day America. BadEmpanada responds that people in modern day America are thoroughly colonized and beat down, and that decolonization would require looking at violated treaties.
29:00 Putting aside the "realism" of the scenario, Destiny asks BadEmpanada if he believes it would be moral to expel people in in America that are on land taken by violating past treaties. BadEmpanada responds he would never advocate for expulsion/retribution, to which Destiny asks what his prescription is. BadEmpanada argues these people should just be given sovereignty, Destiny questions if people would have the right to expel people from land given that they have sovereignty.
30:06 BadEmpanada argues that self determination for the purposes of expelling people from land would not be permissible. Destiny then asks what self-determination would allow these people to do.
30:57 BadEmpanada points out that there's several cases of self-determination in international law. Destiny responds that there's also instances of cooperation, such as the European Union, arguing that having several self-determining countries would not be ideal.
32:10 BadEmpanada states that he understands Destiny's argument that it is difficult to trace who owns certain plots of land, but points to the myriad of legal documents/treaties available in the United States to start working towards decolonization. Destiny once again maintains that it would be difficult to discern what outcomes, if any, would realistically occur when a broken treaty was discovered.
32:59 BadEmpanada provides a hypothetical involving a reservation of people in the United States wanting to declare independence being morally okay.
33:58 Destiny asks BadEmpanada if he believes Texas should be allowed to become independent if a majority of residents voted for it. BadEmpanada attempts to dive into an example regarding another country, but Destiny cuts him off an reiterates the question more broadly: Could any arbitrary group of people declare independence? BadEmpanada rejects this hypothetical, and argues that the "correctness" of declaring independence would vary depending on the situation.
↑
Destiny. (2022, February 12). BadEmpanada Debates Destiny For Prof Flowers, Infrared Haz Jumps Into Twitch Chat. Retrieved 2025, January 16, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG-IeglWKgE.
campaigns against individuals he disagrees with.