Trainwreckstv political panel
On April 6, 2019, Destiny, Hasan Piker, Nick Fuentes, and Sargon of Akkad participated in a several hour long political panel hosted by Trainwrecks, and Asmongold.[1] Destiny and Hasan were selected to represent the "left" side of the political spectrum, while Fuentes and Sargon were selected to represent the "right".
First topic: Transgender Military ban
Following a brief introduction from each panelist regarding their political affiliations, Asmongold presented the first topic: a recent transgender military ban. Fuentes and Sargon were given the opportunity to speak first. While both Sargon and Fuentes asserted their neutrality on the issue, Fuentes took the opportunity to express his disagreement with the concept of transgender individuals as a whole, and made initial arguments against the capabilities of transgender individuals to effectively fulfill their role in the military. Hasan then gives a brief reply, stating the jobs-program like nature of the military, and the extensive degree in which transgender individuals are employed by the military, makes the ban both costly and disrespectful to active service members. Destiny then offers his position, asserting the voluntary nature of the military, prevalence of non-combat roles, and the extensive research done on the part of the Department of Defense in evaluating the "effectiveness" of transgender service members, all stand in opposition to Fuentes's arguments.
Fuentes proceeds to argue that females should be barred from serving in all roles of the military and government positions as a whole, due to the potentiality for them to disrupt the "natural" social-dynamics present in these typically male-dominated groups. Destiny counters, arguing that enabling a society to allow individuals to make decisions relative to what they desire to do, is more important than trying to enforce some "naturalistic" setting as Fuentes desires. Destiny concludes that we should allow individuals to make decisions that would make them happy. Fuentes takes issue with this statement, and asserts that individuals today are not happier than they were in the past. Concluding the topic, Destiny argues that a "liberal society" should allow individuals to fail instead of forcing them into "optimal" decisions as Fuentes desires. Sargon steps in, and proceeds to argue that western birth rates declining should be an indication that society is not functioning properly, and that measures must be taken to ensure it rises again. Destiny takes issue with this argument and questions Sargon's desire to enforce cultural norms(i.e. having children) on a society. Hasan is given the opportunity to give his position before the topic concludes, and suggests the discussion should be geared more towards factors contributing to birth rates declining such as technological achievements and socioeconomic status.
Second Topic: Donald Trump
Train introduces the second topic: The lack of collusion found between Russia and Trump as evidenced by the Mueller report, and negative media bias(aka "fake news") as it pertains to Trump. Destiny, given the opportunity to respond first, dismisses the notion that the media erroneously reported on such collusion. Destiny proceeds to argue argue that Mueller may have had evidence of collusion, but just not enough to "nail anyone to the wall". Hasan chimes in, asserting that while Donald Trump committed obstruction of justice, the investigation should have primarily focused on the Russian social media influence campaigns instead of the collusion aspect. Sargon expresses his agreement with this position, and argues that Trump was too incompetent to have attempted any collusion with Russia. Hasan agrees, and Destiny interjects stating they are both wrong and that Trump's campaign consultant(Paul Manafort) has been found conspiring with foreign agents in the past. Fuentes is given the opportunity to respond, during which time Fuentes points out that despite the large amount of indictments levied against several individuals as a result of the investigation, not a single one involved collusion. Fuentes proceeds to argue that the media bias against Trump may have negatively influenced the perception of the investigation. Destiny takes issue with this point and argues that that most of mainstream media is dominated by right-wing organizations, pointing to Fox News, several right-leaning radio hosts, and right-wing influencers.
In an attempt to provide evidence contrary to the belief that the most popular media positions are held by right-wing affiliated organisations, Sargon provides a list of the most popular political YouTube channels. Sargaon goes on to claim that several left-wing individuals are in the upper echelons of this list. Upon reviewing the list, Destiny and Hasan point out that several of the higher ranking positions are held by right-wing individuals/organizations, and proceed to debate the veracity of a list comparing individuals such as Jimmy Kimmel and No Bullshit. A debate on the causes of media bias eventually arises, Destiny argues that media companies follow "in-step" with cultural norms and will only provide content that is popular. Destiny concedes that individuals like Fuentes may view this through a seperate framework where "the Jews" control all media, but for "those who live in reality", capitalism is a more reasonable answer. During their rebuttal, Sargon and Fuentes point to several modern day media pieces(sitcoms, movies, video games) containing female/non-white protagonists, as examples of a "left-wing" bias. This conversation reaches a boiling point when Destiny directly asks Fuentes if he believes it to be immoral to show interracial relationships in modern media. After some prodding, Fuentes eventually confesses that he does not believe interracial relationships should be promoted. When Destiny and Hasan burst out in laughter at this confession, Fuentes states:
"I like that laughter... that will be really funny when you guys are bred out of existence" - Nick Fuentes shortly after expressing his disagreement with the promotion of interracial relationships
Following this statement, a series of insults and personal attacks are flung from both sides of the panel.
Third Topic: Online influence of the Christchurch mosque shootings
Following the previous topic reaching an unproductive climax, Asmongold introduced the next topic: online influence of the Christchurch mosque shootings, and whether individuals who are "irresponsibly right-wing" should be deplatformed. Fuentes, given the opportunity to speak first, asserts that such acts of violence are inevitable in a multicultural/multiracial society regardless of online influence(Fuentes caveats that the shooter's actions are indeed abhorrent). Fuentes goes on to argue that the true influence on the shooter's actions was his inability to effect the status-quo with regards to "white-erasure" through legitimate means:
"The reason you get violent people, is they say there's no way for me to fix what I see happening in the country through government or media, I can't talk about it, I lose my job, I get my social media account shut down, the people in media aren't talking about it, the politicians aren't talking about it, I cannot effect change within the system through legitimate means, what's the only alternative?"- Fuentes describing what he believes to be the Christchurch shooter's true influence.
Sargon reiterates much of Fuentes's talking points, arguing that the claim the shooter was influenced by YouTubers is a Red herring. Following Sargon, Destiny gives his initial rebuttal, explaining that the shooter was an extreme alt-right figure. Destiny elaborates that while the shooter's views of wanting to kick out all minorities/immigrants from his country were suppressed, given the hateful nature of such views, it was for suppressed for good reason. Destiny continues, arguing that while an exact link to a particular YouTuber which motivated the shooter may be hard to find, hateful rhetoric begets hateful actions, and the gateway for such rhetoric could lie in YouTube. Hasan takes a different approach to his initial rebuttal, deriding Fuentes for "sneaking-in" rhetoric praising the shooter and implying they had no choice but to "shoot-up" the mosque.
Sargon offers his rebuttal, deriding the cultural comminance of left-wing thought, and arguing it's extremes are just as violent as the other end of the political spectrum. Hasan takes issue, arguing that "seizing the means of production", "redistributing wealth", and "universal healthcare", are not inherently violent and have worked in other countries unlike the conservative principles Sargon and Fuentes are advocating for. A debate is then held for some time regarding which of the radical ends of the political spectrum are inherently more violent. Destiny and Hasan point to real world examples of alt-right/conservative mass-shootings/acts of violence, while Sargon and Fuentes point to attacks by immigrants in western countries. A debate then arises over which side of the political spectrum is inherently more violent. Sargon argues that communism is inherently more violent than most other economic schools of thought, which Hasan takes issue with. Hasan simply states communism is not more violent, while Destiny points out that most other economic schools of thought would fail to exist without some form of violence, providing capitalism as an example. Hasan and Destiny are immediately accused of performing a "whataboutism" and are laughed at by Fuentes and Sargon. Hasan is eventually pushed into a full-on defense of communism, while Destiny remains silent:
"The only example of systemic violence brought about by bringing communism into action, is nowhere near as bad as all of the death toll under capitalism. We talk about people dying in famines and what not under communist-dictatorship, seven million people every year die because they don't have access to fucking food... that is a consequence of the capitalist structure we exist under, and yet you never point the finger at that."- Hasan giving an earnest defense of communism to Fuentes and Sargon.
Following further heated deliberation between Fuentes and Hasan, Destiny steps in to steer the conversation back on topic. Destiny argues that a radicalization of white people around the world is occuring, resulting in them committing more terrorist attacks. He continues, asserting that statements like "both sides commit violence" and "the communist revolution was incredibly violent", as Sargon and Fuentes stated, are vacuous. He clarifies that such statement do not truly address the issues regarding right-wing extremism in the modern world, and that while such "online-radicalization" is certainly possible to occur in left-wing individuals, it has not been born out in reality. Following this, Destiny explains the radicalization path which occurs for individuals on the right, and describes how the typical right-wing rhetoric of "being replaced by immigrants", can easily lead people to commit violent acts, and has actually been born out in reality.
Fuentes is then given the opportunity to respond, arguing that individuals on the left utilize acts of violence committed by right-wingers as a pretext to silence their political opponents. Fuentes expands his point, asserting that radicalization exists on all sides of the aisle. Fuentes goes on to provide examples of "left-wing violence" committed by Palestinians, and the Congressional baseball shooting. Following this, the discussion is once again mired by a debate on communism/socialism between Sargon and Hasan, wherein Hasan once again defends against the concept of communism being "inherently violent". Destiny steps in once more, arguing that some types of violence may be justifiable. He explains that the types of arguments a "left-wing" shooter would use to enact violence for economic reasons would inherently be different than a "right-wing shooter's" motivation of enacting violence on a racial group. As a result, Fuentes argues that every single group should be censored, as any rhetoric will intrinsically lead to violence against the state. Destiny once again disagrees, and asserts once more that violence enacted for economic reasons is completely different than that enacted for racial reasons. Fuentes then attempts to argue that the rhetoric enacted by left-wing content creators is inherently violent. While Destiny doesn't disagree, he posets once more that it is justifiable, and right-wing content creators have enacted the same rhetoric, and have actually seen violence born out:
"If you're somebody like Lauren Southern, and you're making videos talking about how western society is being destroyed, that the white man is going extinct, that we're being outbred and forced to take on this multicultural, cuck-culture, by jews that are trying to outbreed and destroy white people, how can you not think that's going to lead to some people committing violence?" -Destiny regarding right-wing rhetoric.
Fuentes counters, arguing that left-wing individuals may be "pussies", afraid to follow through to the logical conclusion. Following further deliberation, the conversation once more gets derailed as Hasan asserts the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States should be labled as genocide This statement is much by much laughter from Sargon and Fuentes, both claiming Hasan does not know what the definition of genocide. Following this, Hasan spearheads yet another debate regarding communism, which is cut short following a rehash of prior talking points from both parties. The topic concludes with Sargon and Fuentes asserting once more that the true cause for violence from right-leaning individuals is the "suppression" of their voice, while Destiny and Hasan maintain the violent-rhetoric from right-leaning individuals is the true cause for such instances of violence. Destiny offers a nuanced answer, caveating that such rhetoric may be platformed if bad faith actors such as Fuentes are excluded. Hasan on the other hand argues that racism is a "social condition", and proceeds to root his answer in his issues with Capitalism and his grievances with the "profit-motive" of corporations. Sargon and Fuentes immediately wave of Hasan's arguments as "marxist-rhetoric", and the conversation is once again derailed into a discussion on communism.
Fuentes and Destiny proceed to have a very heated conversation with one another regarding Nobel prize winning researcher James Watson, "false appeals to authority" and Fuentes's supposed "long-winded nazi-rhetoric". Destiny argues that Fuentes utilizes Watson's supposedly cancellation as leverage to argue that his "nazi-claims" regarding "genetic-intelligence" are valid. Throughout the discussion, Destiny maintains that Fuentes is utilizing "false-appeals to authority" in order to validate certain race-realism claims:
"That's awesome so maybe I can educate you: So intelligence research in and of itself is a massive fucking field that spans several disciplines between Psychology, biology... and the people that debate this are also multidisciplinary people that have spent their fucking lives researching this. The fact that you have discovered the double-helix, or the fact that you have made certain contributions to certain types of DNA research, doesn't suddenly give you the authority to speak on things relating to intelligence"- Destiny in response to Fuentes discussing James Watson's cancellation
The debate becomes increasingly more heated as Destiny becomes increasingly more irate at Sargon and Fuentes for seemingly "solving" the debate surrounding race-realism and genetics. In the interest of moving on to the next topic, Asmongold requests both sides offer their closing statements. Sargon and Fuentes reiterate that they do not wish for anyone's life to be "destroyed" for "dissenting against the system" and simply stating the alleged truth regarding racial differences. Destiny takes issue with this, arguing that Sargon and Fuentes are severely understating the severity and baselessness of Watson's statements, especially considering his stature within the scientific community in a related field. Destiny adds that Watson has seemingly willingly ostracized himself from the scientific community, and argues that this would make it even harder for him to be "reintroduced back into the fold". Hasan's offers a much more blunt conclusion, arguing he feels no sympathy for the "race-realist who sold his nobel peace prize and made a fuck load of money at the age of 90." As Hasan continues his conclusion, he harkens back to the segment of the debate where Sargon and Fuentes derided communism, and places this as evidence to Fuentes and Sargon's bad-faith nature. The conversation then concludes, and the panelists give their farewells.
Debate reception
Throughout the debate, Hasan routinely attempted to tie his arguments into either a critique on capitalism or a praise for socialism. This argumentative tactic, contrasted against Destiny's attempts to engage in more relevant/substantive critiques on the topics discussed, inevitably caused the "left-wing" side of the debate to appear weaker in the face of the arguably more effective rhetoric provided by Fuentes and the "right-wing" side. Following the debate, several r/destiny subreddit users claimed the debate to be a "massive disaster", arguing Fuentes(an up and coming far-right content creator at the time), was essentially given a platform to freely espouse his views and garner more popularity. [2]
| Highlights | |
|---|---|
| |
| Discussion timestamps | |
|---|---|
|
Intros
Nick then earnestly criticizes the bill, arguing that transgendered individuals may not be the best or most capable to perform some of the rigorous tasks faced by individuals in the military and may actually be a detriment. Nick goes on to state that he does not recognize the legitimacy of people possessing gender dysphoria, and asserts that these individuals are likely a product of mental-illness/a poor upbringing. 10:39 Hasan rebuts, arguing that the "jobs-program" nature of the military in the US, coupled with the fact that the Department of Defence is the largest employer of transgender individuals, makes the ban both costly to the military and disrespectful to current service members. Hasan goes on to argue that transgender individuals have been proven to be just as "combat-ready" as cisgender individuals. 12:05 Destiny then presents his rebuttal to Fuentes’s points, emphasizing that the voluntary nature of the U.S. military does not necessarily attract the best and most capable individuals. Destiny highlights that if a transgender person can complete basic training, they meet the minimum requirements for service. Destiny further notes that since 80% of military roles are non-combat, even if these individuals were physically less capable, they would likely serve in non-combat roles. 13:30 Asmongold requests for Destiny to elaborate on the "effectiveness" of transgender individuals. Destiny responds by explaining that non-combat and support roles exist within the military, roles that transgender individuals currently fill without any issues. He continues, stating that the military has conducted extensive research into the effectiveness of transgender individuals in various military roles, and asserts that none of the concerns Fuentes raised have been substantiated by these studies. Asmongold then questions if transgender individuals would cost more per-capita than cisgender individuals. Destiny acknowledges that this might be true on a per-capita basis, but he argues that transgender individuals who have successfully completed basic training have already compensated for any additional costs they have incurred to the institution through their service. Asmongold then poses the same question to Fuentes, who states he does not care for the fiscal cost, and proceeds to deride Hasan for even making mention of it. Asmongold proceeds to ask Fuentes if his catholic background has motivated his opinion in any way, to which Fuentes responds it has. Fuentes then reasserts his indifference to the issue, conceding that transgender individuals can certainly serve in non-combat roles in an effective capacity. 18:45 Destiny asks Fuentes if he believes women should serve in the military, Fuentes responds they should not. Fuentes elaborates: "What kind of world do we want to live in where we're sending our daughters, sisters, mothers, into the middle east to get exploded." Before Fuentes can complete his thought, Hasan proceeds to interrupt him several times with the explicit purpose of not allowing Fuentes to complete his "framing" of the argument. Asmongold reiterates that only 20% of service members see frontline combat, to which Fuentes responds he does not believe women should be in non combat roles nor the business of government. Fuentes elaborates that women may interfere with the "brotherhood" like nature of the military, and may be a detriment to frontline soldiers. 22:04 Hasan argues that Nick is arguing from a personal perspective of what he wants society to look like, and has not provided any data to back up his arguments. Fuentes argues that he rejects the validity of empiricism over a priori rationale, meaning he believes the thing is true due to "common sense". Destiny interjects at this point, and informs Fuentes that a priori and common sense are not the same thing. Fuentes proceeds to mock Hasan and Destiny for believing in people wearing lab coats as opposed to trusting their intuition. 24:59 Sargon asks Hasan if he believes women do influence social dynamics in typically male-dominated groups. Hasan responds that he does not believe this change in social-dynamics typically yields negative consequences. Hasan goes on the elaborate that he does not care for elaborating the efficiency of the military, arguing that the "imperialistic mission of the military to go out and kill brown people" is not something he's fond of. Nick agrees with Hasan's disgust of the "military's current objective", and argues that a biological distinction between man and women still exists, making it very difficult for men and women to work in the same workplace even outside of the military. Fuentes goes on to argue that he wants to live in a world more "in-line" with human nature, and that Hasan is advocating for a "perversion" of our natural social dynamics. 29:46 Destiny offers his rebuttal to Fuentes, arguing that enabling a society to allow individuals to make decisions relative to what they desire to do, is more important than trying to enforce some "naturalistic" setting as Fuentes desires. Destiny concludes that we should allow individuals to make decisions that would make them happy. Fuentes takes issue with this statement, and argues that individuals today are not happier than they were in the past. Destiny counters, arguing that individuals in a liberal society should be "allowed to fail" instead of being forced into optimal decisions. 42:55 Sargon asserts American civilization does not exclude black people at all, due to the fact that they(African Americans) have been in America since the country's inception. Destiny interrupts Sargon and points to the absurdity of the statement, arguing that individuals who came to America as slaves probably felt fairly excluded from society. Sargon concedes that while these individuals did not have a good role in society, they still possessed a role irregardless. Sargon proceeds to argue that western birth rates declining should be an indication that society is not functioning properly, and that measures must be taken to ensure it rises again. 47:29 Hasan is given the opportunity to provide his perspective, and questions Sargon's desire to preserve western civilization. Hasan proceeds to suggest that the discussion on birth rates is irrelevant, when the discussion should be more geared towards factors contributing to birth rates declining such as technological achievements and socioeconomic status.
59:17 Destiny offers his initial response, stating that while the Mueller report may not be yet released, the idea that no Russian Collusion took place has not yet been borne out, and Mueller likely felt he could not nail anybody "to the wall" on such a conspiracy. Destiny reiterates the exact words of the judge "not enough to press charges", can be interpreted several ways, and the notion that the media erroneously reported on the events is incorrect. 1:00:06 Hasan chimes in, citing the Judge's own words: the bar to prove collusion is incredibly high, and that obstruction of justice( which Hasan argues had occurred), does not matter unless the bar for collusion is passed. Asmongold questions how Hasan knows obstruction occurred, and Hasan cites a media appearance wherein Trump claims to have fired then FBI director James Comey in order to ease pressure from the collusion investigation. Hasan proceeds to argue that the "Russian collusion narrative" was self serving, and the investigation should have primarily focused on the "millions of dollars" spent by Russia in influencing US social media. 1:04:33 Asmongold asks Destiny and Hasan if they believe the Mueller report should be released to the public in its entirety. Hasan answers affirmatively, while Destiny states he is unsure. Destiny elaborates, arguing that the Democrats may overfocus on any claims of collusion in the document, and lose the next election as a result. Sargon is given the opportunity to respond, and states that he agrees with Hasan's prior statements. He goes on to assert that Trump simply was not competent enough to collude with Russia. Hasan expresses his agreement with this position, to which Destiny interjects, stating they are both wrong and that Trump's campaign consultant(Paul Manafort) has been found conspiring with foreign agents in the past. 1:08:25 Fuentes is given the opportunity to provide his initial response. Fuentes argues that despite the plethora of indictments levied against individuals both Russian and American, not a single one was related to collusion. Fuentes proceeds to assert that the investigation was given plenty of funding and time to search for any collusion, and the fact that no evidence of such wrongdoing was found should exonerate Trump. Asmongold pointedly asks Fuentes his feelings on the media's role in this investigation, to which Fuentes responds the media was blatantly biased. 1:11:57 Destiny and Fuentes debate which direction US mainstream media tends to be more partisan towards. Fuentes asserts it is primarily left-wing dominated, and as a result unfairly influenced the investigation against Donald Trump. Destiny takes issue, arguing that most of mainstream media is dominated by right-wing organizations and individuals, pointing to Fox News and several right-leaning radio hosts. 1:21:15 Hasan points to the absurdity in attempting to compare the political commentary provided by No Bullshit and Jimmy Kimmel. The debate regarding the veracity of the aforementioned list continues. 1:27:35 Asmongold asks Destiny and Hasan if they believe the majority of mainstream media possess a left-wing bias. Hasan disagrees, while Destiny expresses his uncertainty. Destiny elaborates that talk-radio reaches more customers than any other form of media, while tending to have a right-wing bias. Destiny admits that while it's possible for media to have a left-wing bias today, he does feel conservatives have an adequate enough voice in media today. Fuentes responds that Destiny is denying basic reality, and points to a study claiming 92% of media coverage was against Trump. 1:33:13 Destiny argues that no media company would ever stake their reputation on "progressive values". Destiny proceeds to argue that no producer would place a transgender individual in a role if it wasn't popular to do so. Fuentes and Sargon take issue with this and discuss for some time. During his rebuttal, Sargon argues that large media corporations such as Disney are absolutely placing "morales" ahead of profits. Nick argues the left-wing media bias is prevalent, and to argue otherwise is to deny reality. Nick points to several movies, tv shows, and video games as examples. 1:47:40 In response to Sargon claiming the Sequel Star Wars movies made no money as a result of their "woke-agenda", Destiny reads off the money earned by each movie. Destiny then points to a Sequel Star Wars film containing a white-male lead, which made substantially less money than the aforementioned "woke" movies. 1:51:33 Destiny asks Fuentes if he believes if it's immoral to show interracial relationships in media. Fuentes responds he does not believe it to be immoral, however he does not want a "deliberate" social agenda pushed by media organizations, particularly in that direction. Asmongold asks Fuentes to clarify what he means by "that direction", to which Fuentes responds he does not believe interracial marriages should be promoted. Destiny and Hasan burst out in laughter at this confession, to which Fuentes states: "I like that laughter, it will be really funny when you guys are bred out of existence."
2:04:20 Following a short break, Fuentes is given the opportunity to respond first. Fuentes begins his argument by asserting that calls for violence by individuals on the right, particularly the white identitarian/advocacy crowd, is generally not tolerated. Fuentes goes on to describe how one would be hard-pressed to find a specific influencer from this crowd who would make a call to violence, and therefore asserts that it was unlikely the shooter was influenced by right-leaning content creators. Fuentes proceeds to contrast this shooting against several other shootings that occured in the days following Christchurch, one committed by a Muslim, and another by an Italian migrant. Fuentes argues that while he would never advocate for an ethnostate, such acts of violence are a "natural consequence" of multiracialism/multiculturalism, and that such acts should be regarded as "inevitable" regardless of online influence. 2:07:37 Asmongold reiterates the question, asking Fuentes if he believes any YouTuber's rhetoric inexplicitly led the shooter to commit the act. Fuentes responds, arguing that any talking points/data cited by the shooter in his manifesto, could easily have been retrieved from a number of other sources outside of YouTube. Fuentes goes on to assert that the true influence on this shooter is the mainstream media claiming there's no way to affect the status-quo with regards "white-erasure" through legitimate means. Fuentes caveats this by stating the shooter's actions were in no way rational, and are abhorrent. 2:09:41 Sargon is given the opportunity to speak. Sargon mirrors Fuentes' talking points, arguing that the problem is not a result of the existence of online communities, but rather the fact that the shooter felt he was unable to legitimately air his grievances. Sargon provides the youtube headquarters shooter as an example, stating she was just demonetized and did not originate from a "deeply ideological community", and felt she could not effectively reach out to YouTube. Sargon concludes by stating every community "has their shooters", and the idea that the shooter was influenced by YouTubers is a Red herring. 2:12:19 Destiny provides his response, arguing that while it would be hard to establish that any particular YouTuber influenced this shooter, hateful rhetoric can still lead to hateful acts of violence. He expresses his understanding of Fuentes and Sargon's argument that the shooter may have felt his views were "suppressed," but he adds a caveat that these views were suppressed for good reason. Destiny elaborates that "horrendous anti-immigration views" held by individuals like Fuentes or Sargon, are rightfully suppressed. 2:15:06 Hasan provides his initial response, beginning by sarcastically praising Fuentes for being a "phenomenal orator" and "sneaking in" several lines of rhetoric. He accuses Fuentes of calling the shooter a martyr, and derides him for claiming the shooting was an "unavoidable" and "rationale" cause of coexisting with people who look slightly different than him. Hasan proceeds to attribute the radicalization of the shooter to right-wing nationalism, and argues such thinking has become problematic in the US. 2:16:59 Sargon offers his rebuttal to Hasan and Destiny, asserting the only reason right-wing nationalism is up for debate, is because of the "cultural-commanance" of the left. Sargon goes on to state the views held by those on the "radical-left" are just as horrific as those on the radical-right, yet are still being platformed. Hasan retorts, arguing that concepts such as "seizing the means of production", "redistributing wealth", and "universal healthcare", are not inherently abhorrent and have worked in other countries unlike the conservative principles Sargon and Fuentes are advocating for. Sargon then chides Hasan for attempting to steer the conversation down a "marxist rabbit hole". 2:20:20 Hasan asks Sargon to provide acts of left-wing violence that is similar in nature to right-wing violence. Sargon brings up acts of violence committed by immigrants in western countries, and blames communism for allowing these individuals into these countries. A debate then arises regarding whether or not communism is inherently violent. Hasan immediately takes issue with this, but does not readily substantiate his disagreement. While Destiny argues that while communism is violent, most other economic schools of thought are just as, if not more, violent. 2:30:07 Destiny steps in, arguing a radicalization of white people around the world is occuring, resulting in them committing more terrorist attacks. He then asserts that statements like "both sides commit violence" is vacuous, and doesn't truly address the issues regarding right-wing extremism in the modern world. 2:32:31 Fuentes is given the opportunity to speak, arguing that Destiny and Hasan are using acts of violence committed by right-wingers as a pretext to silence their political opponents. Throughout his rebuttal, Fuentes asserts that radicalization exists on all sides o the aisle, and provides examples of "left-wing violence" committed by Palestinians, and the Congressional baseball shooting. 2:35:59 Hasan and Sargon debate communism once more, followed by Destiny attempting to steer the conversation back on track. Destiny explains that the justifications someone would use to attack someone based on their race, would be much different than someone who would enact violence on a group of people for economic reasons. 2:45:18 Destiny: "If you're somebody like Lauren Southern, and you're making videos talking about how western society is being destroyed, that the white man is going extinct, that we're being outbred and forced to take on this multicultural, cuck-culture, by jews that are trying to outbreed and destroy white people, how can you not think that's going to lead to some people committing violence?" Fuentes counters that left-wing individuals may just be "pussies". 2:50:05 Hasan asserts the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States should be labled a genocide. Sargon and Fuentes laugh, as Destiny remains silent. 2:57:00 The conversation once again gets mired in a debate on socialism. 3:00:19 The conversation is brought on track once more, and Destiny asks Sargon what his prescription to stop radical individuals on the right is. Sargon responds that individuals on the right should stop having their voices suppressed, and be openly platformed. Fuentes agrees large in part with this assertion, and adds that isolation of individuals possessing certain ideals may also lead to radicalization. Destiny offers his rebuttal, arguing that these individuals can be brought out of "isolation" without having them embrace ideas such as race-realism. Destiny goes on to argue argue that while some individuals may be platformed, bad-faith actors such as Fuentes should be excluded. 3:11:15 Hasan offers his rebuttal to Sargon and Fuentes, arguing that the "social conditions" brought on by capitalism are the true cause for the issues seen with right-wing radicalism. Following Hasan mentioning "the profit motive", Sargon and Fuentes immediately laugh off Hasan's arguments off as "marxist-rhetoric". 3:16:35 Fuentes attempts to bring up James Watson, a researcher who discovered DNA, but is interrupted by Destiny. Destiny accuses Fuentes of attempting to make a "nazi-argument", and the panel becomes increasingly unproductive for some time until Train moderates and allows Fuentes to continue his point. Destiny argues that Fuentes is making an "appeal to false authority" as "just because you're the discoverer of DNA does not give you the ability to speak with any sort of authority whatsoever on it". Destiny and Fuentes proceed to have a heated conversation on the subject. 3:34:39 Closing statements regarding the topic are given. Sargon and Fuentes argue that Watson's cancellation is unjustified, and is evidence of the fact that right-wing thought is being suppressed. Destiny takes issue with this interoperation, and argues that Watson's statements were incredibly irresponsible and unfounded, especially considering his standing within the scientific community on a related subject. Destiny adds that Watson has seemingly willingly ostracized himself from the scientific community, and argues that this would make it even harder for him to be "reintroduced back into the fold". 3:44:58 Before the next topic can be introduced, several panelists give an excuse to exit the call and the panel concludes. | |
References
- ↑ Trainwreckstv. (2019, April 6). SARGON OF AKKAD, TYT’s HASAN PIKER, DESTINY, NICK F, & co-host ASMONGOLD - POLITICAL PODCAST. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XbT4UojaRw
- ↑ https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/b9mahl/i_think_we_can_all_agree_that_this_was_a_massive/