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. These conflicts culminated on March 5, 2024, when Destiny added BadEmpanada to his Super Blacklist after BadEmpanada incited harm against him during his trip to Israel.
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 Nazizm 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.
29:03 "Would it be moral to expel these people from the land?"
campaigns against individuals he disagrees with.