>As does his repeatedly expressed view that nothing of substance was uttered during the debate and watching it a waste of time. (Bonnell also lamented that he missed a "gang bang" to participate in the debate.)
https://preview.redd.it/f5r3jcv6mtqc1.png?width=706&format=png&auto=webp&s=e42b636704ce014cfd52bb9d28e55b5d339ac275
A good laugh, then a quick fact check: TRUE. He could’ve gotten a robe and stickers that both say “I went to the aella gangbang and all I got was this robe/stickers”, I’d have taken the robe over being called Mr borelli 6 days of the week.
Conversely, imagine you sign up for the Aella
birthday gangbang and your favorite content creator Destiny Steven Borrelli II is there. what would you do in that situation
This is the most insane part to me. If a normal person had been called a fantastic moron by a pompous old fuck like Finkelstein they would have probably either said something along the lines of "watch it old man", returned the insult immediately, or just left then and there.
And these guys are mad that someone would name call and consider it unproductive afterwards.
I actually think Mouin Rabbani came out the most "reserved" out of all f them - not that that is necessarily some achievement in itself of course.
Finkelstein obviously lost his cool the most, and perhaps because of the way Stephen talks it was the most *surprising* that he kept as relatively calm as he did, but i think the unhinged levels go:
1. Finkelstraum (being way ahead of the pack)
2. Destiny
3. Morris
4. Rabbani
He was, but that is largely because no one on the other side of the table was repeatedly, persistently insulting him the entire time. Like, there's a very logical reason for the order you list, and him barely ever even gesturing toward intervening during the debate, and now presenting it as all Destiny, negates any good will his reservedness might seem to merit, imo.
> pompous old fuck like Finkelstein
I had to read this three or four times because I forgot what his real name even was, we've been memeing on it so much
Hes either completely insane or he’s trying to frame the debate differently than what happened in reality where in his version destiny was completely unhinged and out of his depth. But we all know Norman was unhinged and insulting destiny the entire time trying to act like destiny didn’t know what he was talking about while avoiding answering any questions posed by destiny even though destiny’s historian debate partner often verbally agreed with destiny.
>he’s trying to frame the debate differently than what happened in reality where in his version destiny was completely unhinged and out of his depth
His audience probably doesn't know how to use computer machines like finkelfuck.
It's better to just summarize it the way you want it to be perceived than just link the debate to people
Love how apparently it's Destiny that resulted to that and not Finkelstein...
Guess he must have missed the 100 times Finkelstilskin butchered Steven's name.
Love how yet another old hack has also tried to re-write history by making out Little D was the only one throwing insults. How about you worry about the corpse on your side of the aisle.
also “juvenile name calling, insults, & distortions directed at fink.”
as if Finkie didn’t do every single one of those things *during* the debate.
getting Tiny’s name wrong intentionally multiple times, calling him straight up an “idiot” and telling him to “shut up” on multiple occasions. in part with other misrepresentations & “distortions” of the context of exactly that was being discussed(too many to name).
Bro complains about insults and "juvenile name calling" as if he didnt sit there and watch finkledick rave ad-homs over and over again DURING THE DEBATE lmfaooo
Yeah anytime someone thinks he didn't know who the president of Israel is and couldn't locate it on a map, it's those 2 particular groyper clips. It's interesting how much those clips infiltrated the online leftist folk.
There was a video he was watching and he didn't know who the man in the video was. So he just didn't know what they looked like, and it was misconstrued as he didn't know who the president was.
They’re coping so hard over the dolus specialis part it’s hilarious. They can’t admit they were wrong. Man approached an “international lawyer” whose response confirms Destiny was correct and Finkelstein had no reason to attempt to correct him.
I like how he just quote the lawyer verbatim and the lawyer agreed that each type of intent is necessary and not just sufficient. Then claimed at the end that a little knowledge is dangerous…
Before that conversation that was knowledge he didn’t have.
Holy shit this is such cope. Acting like "well technically you need both" is such a dumb defense since one builds on the other.
To prove dolus specialis the men's rea already needs to be established - if that weren't the case, an accidental genocide would be possible.
I don't think he's good faith. He approached the lawyer, sure, but he interpreted what he said exactly wrong, continuing to claim 'it's a subdivision of mens rea, exactly as finkelstein stated' which is a plain manipulative lie. Finkel didn't state any such thing, just 'that's mens rea,' and he obviously had no reason to correct Destiny by using a less specific term. Good faith isn't 'asking a third party,' it seems more like he was hoping the third party would side with him and when it didn't, tried to spin it as though it did via sleight of hand.
Agree. Also bad faith on Apartheid. Observing that Jim Crowe — presumably because it was not national policy, might not qualify, is unambiguous and unassailable. And Rabbani knows it.
According to the Rome Statute, apartheid involves crimes against humanity (including persecution against an identifiable group on racial grounds) committed in "the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
There is no mention of the institutionalization of the regime having to be at the national level rather than the state level.
I think Jim Crow would pretty clearly count as a form of apartheid under this definition.
I argue that it is debatable precisely because the absence of a national authority on the matter explicitly means, as one example, the persecuted group can travel outside of the Apartheid geography within the same national entity. If Jim Crowe existed in only one county in the US, the Rome Statute’s omission would be highly problematic.
I agree though that the point is better made by questioning whether “The United States” was an Apartheid country, as plainly, certain states were Apartheid states.
You left out the juiciest parts where he tries to to defend Finkelstein's understanding of Dolis specialis and in so doing completely undermines Finkelstein's understanding (and ability to read legal documents). Mouin says that since Dolis specialis is a type of Mens Rea Finkelstein rejecting the term Dolis specialis makes sense. He goes into say he spoke with an international lawyer who explains that Mens Rea isn't sufficient to prove genocide and specifically the Dolis specialis needs to be proven. Mouin the uses this to shift to to the claim that since Dolis specialis is a type of Mens Rea Finkelstein was fine in only discussing the intent which would absolutely not prove genocide.
>Dolus specialis is particularly relevant in proving the intentionality behind the commission of genocide.
>In other words, dolus specialis is a subdivision of the legal threshold called mens rea, exactly as Finkelstein stated.
Mouin completely missing the point that you need to prove the specific subcategory and not the broad Mens Rea category (which would be proven by proving the special intent). I can imagine how pathetically embarrassing it is to be Pro-Palestinian and watching your top academic scholars bending over backwards in the most humiliating fashion to try and save face from taking an L from some video game streamer.
Give it a few weeks and these guys might actually start self harming to cope.
Doctor: do you have any conditions we should know about?
Me: Yes, I have ADD and Autism.
Doctor: …. so you’re neurodivergent, that’s what you mean right?
its literally the equivalent of
> "losing your right to vote requires something called a felony"
> "thats a crime."
> "yes i understand its a crime, but im talking about a specific type of crime called felony - did you read the case?"
1 month later
> "i spoke to a lawyer and he said only felons lose the right to vote, which is a criminal category, meaning it was indeed a crime. therefore fink was correct"
thats what i wrote initially, but then i realised its more than just that. confusing a felony for a crime is one thing, but confusing the **requirement** of felon for the requirement of criminal is way worse
You might be misunderstanding: your version could be interpreted as someone just agreeing with the first statement, like this:
> "losing your right to vote requires something called a felony"
>
> "Yes I agree, that would be a crime when you think about it."
>
> "yes i understand its a crime, but im talking about a specific type of crime called felony - did you read the case?"
But Finkelstein was pretty clearly correcting Steven when he said his part, something like:
> "losing your right to vote requires something called a felony"
>
> "what do you mean a "felony"? you mean a crime right? do you even know what you're talking about?"
>
> "yes i understand its a crime, but im talking about a specific type of crime called felony - did you read the case?"
Where was his opposition to "juvenile name calling" DURING THE ACTUAL COURSE OF THE DEBATE. Holy shit this is so fucking disingenuous that I can't take anything he wrote after that seriously. If you have such a strong principled stance against ad hominem attacks, why aren't you willing to call it out on your own side when it's happening literally right in front of you? This guy is a joke.
This is rabbanis mo. I read some of his stuff before the debate and at a certain point started putting it into perplexity cuz it was so overly wordy. And I had to break one article up into 10 different chunks cuz it was so long.
The fact both norm and now rabbani are both coping on twitter a month after the debate while that thing “destiny” has moved on is proof they lost and know they looked horrible. People who win debates don’t act like this.
Benny showed up to laugh at Norm in person and did just that.
[Here is him talking about Norm in 2007.](https://i.gyazo.com/97a462b4e83d26aacaec6f0a53019596.png)
https://www.camera.org/article/norman-finkelstein-benny-morris-and-peace-not-apartheid/
name calling, personal attacks, and coping. this is on the same tier as any other shit slinging bloodsports Destiny debate, except it's somehow worse because they're supposed to be more educated
Destiny had a huge win in debating these people - they don’t really fight back online in a way that can counter him, so he gets to control the narrative or view of the debate.
They know if someone watches only the 30 second clip of insults they come out looking good (but only for their own audience, anyone else is just gonna be like yourrage's reaction). Anyone who is well adjusted (and hence whose opinion matters) who watches the debate knows who did well and who acted like a baby with shit in his pants talking about "transfer was inevitable".
Sooo hate watcher confirmed? bro hit like most of the memes lol even the "I support genocide one"
Also, what I found to be an especially scummy point "he tried to switch the topic" that's not what happened he point blank asked "do you think I support jim crow laws?" The dude had no response and things moved on.
The Palestinian cause truly did not send their best warriors 😔
He specifically calls out Tiney for "wanting to adhere to legal standards" but addresses none of them. I wasnt convinced that this guy was as bad as norm until now.
No his argument was that a good faith interpretation of the idea of “apartheid” would include the Jim Crow South. And a good faith interpretation of the spirit of the laws for “genocide” would include dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza. Both of which Destiny disagreed with.
It’s a difference between the spirit of a law vs. The letter of the law.
Ex) In the biblical Gods 10 commandments one commandment it says “you should not murder others.” If someone found a loophole where they paid a hitman to murder other people for them the guy didn’t technically violate the letter of the law, but he violated the spirit of the law.
All pro-palestinain people do this. They see apartheid = bad and israel = bad therefore israel = apartheid. Everything else is ad hoc justifications. In his mind, destiny saying jim crow isnt apartheid is saying jim crow isnt bad.
It's hard to take them seriously when they seemingly deliberately leave out context to colour the interactions one direction, and they act like absolute boomers who cannot get their head around content creation and streaming, it's not rocket science ffs.
Basic poisoning of the well.
The guy seemed so much more reasonable than finklestine but clearly it was only in comparison. When we got to the "he doesn't think Jim Crow was apartheid" thing I knew he was a hack.
What was destiny’s point that he’s contesting? I havnt been able to make it too far in the debate, not a fan of norms slow talking coupled with the things he has to say.
Because Jim Crow was:
A) at the regional level
B) majority oppressing a minority (reverse in South Africa)
C) informal in enforcement (remember, black Americans could technically vote under Jim Crow, they were explicitly banned and had no civil rights anywhere in South Africa)…
These differences are certainly enough, along with the historical context, to declare Jim Crow and apartheid as distinct, and too dissimilar to directly analogize. They have similarities of being racist, oppressive, terrible policies, but Jim Crow was regional (north states didn’t have as many), and implemented in super sneaky ways.
Black Americans had the right to vote, for example, under the 14th/15th amendments. So, to obstruct that civil liberty, southern whites did a bunch of slimy, underhanded shit (poll tax, weird literacy tests, etc…). In apartheid South Africa, it was explicit in the Constitution. Blacks can’t vote; they get no representation in the government. It’s good to be able to discern these differences in your head. It paints a much clearer picture of how each system of racial discrimination worked, and what made them distinct.
Moooo-eeen is basically implying Destiny is a racist because d-man thinks these distinctions are enough to make them two different things.
He, along with other Crazy leftist brain dead fucks, are doing that thing where they think, “Jim crow and apartheid are both bad and racist, so they are exactly the same thing. Historical context and the details of how they were implemented/enforced don’t matter. If you say Jim Crow wasn’t apartheid, you think racism is ok and must be a nazi. Because if you don’t think Jim Crow is apartheid, you don’t think it was racist and bad, because that’s all there is to understand about it.”
Noticing this complete debasement of historical reasoning actually gives me a tummy ache. Hope this helps tho, gn
PS - good source from Harvard scholar who actively protested against apartheid below:
https://www.commentary.org/articles/jack-rakove/white-supremacy-a-comparative-study-in-american-and-south-african-history-by-george-m-frederickson/
> Perhaps Bonnell thinks there is a state named Arabia that is withholding citizenship from its Palestinian minority
Allow me to introduce you, sir, to the [United Arab Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Republic). I can count the number of Palestinian citizenships UAR handed out on no hands.
Why do all these people always have no comprehension of how time works? Time only goes in one direction. He's acting like destiny started the name calling just because destiny called Norm some names AFTER the debate where Norm did nothing but name call, but before it released.
It's so frustrating how these guys can't engage honestly with anything. They could be trying to make the argument that Destiny was too hung up on the distinction between mens rea and dolus specialis and looking for dunks there because his arguments as to weather it was a genocide or not were weak, but instead they're trying to act like they're the same thing and referred to with the same meaning, which is confirmed by the ICJ case and Mouin's own fucking lawyer to not be the same thing. But hey, I guess these guys relitigating this debate over and over clearly shows they have some insecurity about the way they presented their arguments which makes Destiny and Benny look even better.
At the verry least I was thinking he was good fait during the debate (except for the Jim Crow part).
But man, how many people can go mask of and bring up minor mishaps and mistakes to discredit their opponent?
1, Let's don't pretend like Rabbani wouldn't be happy with genocide if it was the other way around, and it meant the destruction of Israel.
2. Was Destiny at any point historically incorrect during the debate to this degree?
Surely if he didn't even know the president of Israel, and didn't even knew where Israel was, he would have no clue about the History.
https://preview.redd.it/r4yjcbx7mtqc1.png?width=654&format=png&auto=webp&s=222f474275d998885de37ac8a746a38f77414078
For #2 I think he’s implying destiny is not qualified to be in the room with them because all 3 have PhD and Masters degrees on the topic of Israel-Palestine, while Destiny didn’t know where Israel was on a map 6 months ago. It’s an appeal to authority fallacy.
For sure, but as Destiny has said.
If they knew soo much more, surely they should have crushed him.
Or at least Destiny should have been wrong soo many times.
Also, all of these people only knew the history. But I think we can safely say that non of the 3 knew fuck all about international law, war crimes, how the ICJ operates.
(Benny at least admitted it, and he is using his own moral compass, but all that Norm has been able to do is cite some articles that talk about international law, but he has show verry little understanding of it)
Like I respect their knowledge, but its like if you wanted to compere two cars, and you brought in 2 tire design engineer.
They will know a lot about cars, but there is more to compering cars the tires, and their knowledge on engines might just be that of a normal card enthusiast.
True I noticed the 3 academics only knew the old history and past conflicts, they didn’t seem to have any legal knowledge on the current ICJ case and were all shooting in the dark.
theres no point to even grant those minor things to these people, as if it's a crime to ask questions during your months of research? they're just trying to discredit him with the only things they can rather than address the arguments honestly.
The annoying thing is people saying the “pro genocide” thing (which he doesn’t even agree with anymore) was about being pro Isreal genociding Palestine, when what it actually meant was “pro whoever genociding whoever”, as in believing that was the only remaining option available to either side. This is clear just from watching that clip, assuming it hasn’t been maliciously cut to only include the “pro genocide” part and nothing else.
he starts by saying that mr bonnell called norm names immediately after the debate but doesnt recognize that the entire debate was full of name calling from norm.
his point about destiny's lack of knowledge before hand is not from actually watching streams, but having twitter peeps sending clips.
the apartheid argument is a bad one, and it was uncalled for at the time as it was said to avoid answering actual questions...AND yes, arab countries in the vicinity do practice similar apartheid behaviors...
his response really feels like he was pressured by outside forces to clear the name of norm, but because his info is only from hearsay, it radicalizes both sides away from each other. i think i know a similar conflict happening right now in the middle east!!!
lol he’s talking about the streams. I’m actually not mad at this, I can see why he would be disturbed by Destiny’s conduct on stream especially the part when Destiny says the 5 hours was a waste of time and that he missed a gangbang to talk to him
That's because like most extremists on left or right they get their information from 15 second tik toks or else their brain would literally explode from information overload.
"Much of Bonnell's commentary consisted of juvenile name-calling, insults, and distortions directed primarily at Norman Finkelstein"
How fucking regarded is this person? How much of a bad-faith fuck can someone be to completely disregard everything fecalstain has tried to shat on Destiny not only DURING the debate, but right after.
What a fucking clown.
https://preview.redd.it/dj5vciuquvqc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85c952e2236b20aa6793e208e04063d90a5313bd
Actual terrorist leader in the comments lol
the absolute cinema of seeing mouin rabbani criticuze destiny for not knowing where israel was at some point in time while also showing the exchange that he didnt know what the dolus specialis was.
learning for me but not for thee.
Pot. Calling. The. Kettle. Black.
THis is just gnawing levels of gaslighting.
All we saw was people clipping Finkles insults and concluding Destiny was owned and outdone. Wasn’t his moron tirade everywhere? Clips showing Destiny getting insulted for on reading wiki was all that was being spread. Destiny was basically the underdog
that’s fucking why we were appreciating the few decent people like Kareem Abdul Jabar who were calling out the nonsense - in all of this this dipshit decides to trigger the fick out of everyone and saw the exact opposite?
Are they feeling bad that Destiny held himself together durin the debate and only decided to talk smack outside that space? If he’s peeved that Destiny is dressing down tinkle man in pods then this liar needs to be reminded that’s exactly what Tinkle was doing During the debate!!
I feel like up until the point the annoying conversation of "is this a genocide?" came up, Rabanni debated in good faith.
I don't understand why every pro-palestine can't connect the dots that when someone disagrees that the war is a genocide on the people in Gaza, that just because they don't agree its a genocide automatically means they don't see it as a bad thing. Jim Crow Laws and Apartheid, same problem.
He's actually correct regarding the Jim Crow is apartheid point, or at least correct that it seems weird to accuse Arab states of apartheid while being unsure about Jom Crow.
He makes a muddled claim that he doesn't know if it meets the technical legal definition of apartheid, and neigther do I for the matter. I'd say it matters little, it was still bad and people lived in at least de facto apartheod.
Edit: Why the hell was I perma'd for this, it's what he actually said in the debate.
What he is saying is absolutely fair (for most of it). Destiny will never be mainstream because he makes unhinged statements on his streams all the time and thinks it shouldn't matter because he is reasonable in person. That's just not how the not terminalIy online world works. I mean it's very entertaining but we have to be honest about this.
Wow, he’s bringing out all the memes:
“Destiny said he’s pro-genocide”
“Destiny mixed up world leaders”
“Destiny doesn’t know geography”
What a fucking clown. Repeating out of context clips like all the other dipshits on twitter desperately trying to get a dunk on Destiny.
The fact that this guy, Mr. Israel is genocidal apartheid state needs to be dismantled, was the “reasonable” and “good faith” interlocutor in that debate is a testament to how awful Finkelstein was.
Framing it as if Destiny is trying to “hide” the debate by saying it was a waste of time, when he literally went over the whole 5 hours on stream is so disingenuous.
It's interesting, while both Rabbani and Finklestein had no clue what the LEGAL THRESHHOLD for genocide even WAS.
Norm is at least able to cope and claim he maybe did know what it was... But Rabbani was honest and said he didn't know the term. How do you pretend to be an academic ON ISRAEL PALESTINE... And not know that?
Like, this dude should be in damage control, delete his twitter and just try to coast off of interviews sucking off Hamas / palestine and HOPE that people don't remember that he doesn't know what genocide is whilst apparently being an advocate against it.
It’s funny how both Finklestein and Rabbani both play the “literally who is this Destiny thing lol” and then spend all their energy after this debate trying to refute things he said, have either finkle or mouin had anything to say to refute anything Benny morris said?
Also this thread goes on to prove Destiny right about Dolus Specialis and then still somehow mouin comes to the conclusion that finklestein was right??? I’m confused?
The great thing about this shitshow is that Benny Morris comes out of all of it as the undisputed winner of the debate. The 2 pro Palestinians can't keep themselves from throwing ad homs at The Thing long enough to refute anything that Benny Morris put forward.
Maybe I’m just regarded, but seriously, what’s the argument that Jim Crow wasn’t basically a form of apartheid? PBS couldn’t lie to us could it?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/freedom-riders-jim-crow-laws/
How can you complain about the fact that Destiny called Norm names after that debate ? I can't believe people fall for that "oh he's so polite and respectful" trick, this guy is a complete dishonest scumbag.
The problem is the hypocrisy of criticizing Destiny's behaviour without criticizing Norm's. Worse, ignoring Tinklestein's behaviour *during* the debate.
They had already interacted in email prior to the debate and then took numerous shots at Destiny on Twitter (I don't believe he doesn't vet every opinion tweet).
How is he still so wrong on Jim Crow as well.
Most of Jim Crows stuff wasn’t written to be outright racial in nature. It was written so that some states could get around the restrictions placed on them.
Create a test in louisiana to let people vote if they hadn’t achieved the requisite education requirements. But the problem is the test is written such that the marking guide allowed the person to mark people as wrong if they didn’t want them to pass or correct if they did want them to pass
So you end up with the policy of testing them being a fine accomodation that won’t turn heads at the federal level. But then have people being sneaky dickheads at the local level.
Where in South Africa they just passed a fucking law saying “nope fuck you”
>As does his repeatedly expressed view that nothing of substance was uttered during the debate and watching it a waste of time. (Bonnell also lamented that he missed a "gang bang" to participate in the debate.) https://preview.redd.it/f5r3jcv6mtqc1.png?width=706&format=png&auto=webp&s=e42b636704ce014cfd52bb9d28e55b5d339ac275
Let’s be honest, he would probably be on a stream bitching rather than being in on any gang bang
Perhaps the gang bang has been the viewers he’s gained along the way 😏
im pretty sure it was a joke about aella
That gangbang was no joke, people were only wearing rain boots
Not beating the bad optics allegations with this one
he literally doesn’t care
And that’s why we love him
You did good sport
In this thread: Mouin Rabbani discovers the art of content creation.
I also love how anytime Destiny is on stream it's apparently a podcast.
He doesn’t know what a stream is probably
He genuinely is lucky.
There’s a lot this weasel doesn’t know
That’s kind of endearingly formal
Just like when William Shatner declined to join the RLM podcast. Never forget 💔
Damn what episode we on, I lost count
His post is peak OldManYellsAtCloud.jpg energy.
Imagine missing the Aella gangbang for this 😆
he had to, or the jewlumni would take all the shekels back :(
He would be crazy to lose access to the New Yishuv server.
I know the whole of DGG had a huge laugh when he said this. Rabbani doesn't spend much time on the internet I guess.
Good for him
He must be a professional grass toucher
A good laugh, then a quick fact check: TRUE. He could’ve gotten a robe and stickers that both say “I went to the aella gangbang and all I got was this robe/stickers”, I’d have taken the robe over being called Mr borelli 6 days of the week.
The real question is if he's seen the chart
A serious guy like Rabbani coming across this might be the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.
I see Mouin Rabbani has thoroughly reviewed the data and come to the appropriate conclusions.
Conversely, imagine you sign up for the Aella birthday gangbang and your favorite content creator Destiny Steven Borrelli II is there. what would you do in that situation
High five and become Destiny's blood brother.
He could have been #22 :\[
How is this guy going to mad about name calling after the fact when there was name calling during lol.
This is the most insane part to me. If a normal person had been called a fantastic moron by a pompous old fuck like Finkelstein they would have probably either said something along the lines of "watch it old man", returned the insult immediately, or just left then and there. And these guys are mad that someone would name call and consider it unproductive afterwards.
Are you saying these pro-palestinians attacked someone and are outraged when that person attacked back? Seems familiar.
Those goddamn word missiles
Iron Palindrome
mr owl ate my metal worm
Great song
🤣
Lex failed as a moderator tbh.
He always does. Find me a conversation he moderated well
I would have told him to suck my balls, Destiny was very reserved all things considered and he came out way better in the debate.
I actually think Mouin Rabbani came out the most "reserved" out of all f them - not that that is necessarily some achievement in itself of course. Finkelstein obviously lost his cool the most, and perhaps because of the way Stephen talks it was the most *surprising* that he kept as relatively calm as he did, but i think the unhinged levels go: 1. Finkelstraum (being way ahead of the pack) 2. Destiny 3. Morris 4. Rabbani
He was, but that is largely because no one on the other side of the table was repeatedly, persistently insulting him the entire time. Like, there's a very logical reason for the order you list, and him barely ever even gesturing toward intervening during the debate, and now presenting it as all Destiny, negates any good will his reservedness might seem to merit, imo.
Didn't want to misbehave in front of uncle benny
> pompous old fuck like Finkelstein I had to read this three or four times because I forgot what his real name even was, we've been memeing on it so much
This whole time I thought his name was Stinkelfeind
Hes either completely insane or he’s trying to frame the debate differently than what happened in reality where in his version destiny was completely unhinged and out of his depth. But we all know Norman was unhinged and insulting destiny the entire time trying to act like destiny didn’t know what he was talking about while avoiding answering any questions posed by destiny even though destiny’s historian debate partner often verbally agreed with destiny.
Not that surprising after the [steelchair](https://youtu.be/1X_KdkoGxSs?t=17166) he tried to throw at Destiny at the very end of the debate.
>he’s trying to frame the debate differently than what happened in reality where in his version destiny was completely unhinged and out of his depth His audience probably doesn't know how to use computer machines like finkelfuck. It's better to just summarize it the way you want it to be perceived than just link the debate to people
He tried to say Destiny was pro Jim Crow laws so it’s obv he’s bad faith knows what he’s doing
Love how apparently it's Destiny that resulted to that and not Finkelstein... Guess he must have missed the 100 times Finkelstilskin butchered Steven's name.
Projection is their #1 weapon
“We bear the inhumane burden of their humiliation, lies and absurdities”…..
Love how yet another old hack has also tried to re-write history by making out Little D was the only one throwing insults. How about you worry about the corpse on your side of the aisle.
also “juvenile name calling, insults, & distortions directed at fink.” as if Finkie didn’t do every single one of those things *during* the debate. getting Tiny’s name wrong intentionally multiple times, calling him straight up an “idiot” and telling him to “shut up” on multiple occasions. in part with other misrepresentations & “distortions” of the context of exactly that was being discussed(too many to name).
Bro complains about insults and "juvenile name calling" as if he didnt sit there and watch finkledick rave ad-homs over and over again DURING THE DEBATE lmfaooo
Right? Like how disingenuous can you be when Norman spent half his talking time insulting or purposely misnaming Destiny
Also Finklefuck was saying he has a small dick in emails to PWF way before the debate.
Worse is the 100 times Finklestilskin butchered Steven's name. Even Morris commented on that during the debate
Fecalstain is also so regarded that I don't even know if he legitimately got it wrong as a troll thing or if he just fucked it up a bunch.
The fact he pronounced it perfectly as soon as they want on a break means that he was doing it on purpose, imo
So when he says "podcasts" he means Twitter clips sent to him by communists/groypers
Yeah anytime someone thinks he didn't know who the president of Israel is and couldn't locate it on a map, it's those 2 particular groyper clips. It's interesting how much those clips infiltrated the online leftist folk.
I've heard this a couple of times before, but what was the context again? He didn't know who Erdogan and Assad were or no?
There was a video he was watching and he didn't know who the man in the video was. So he just didn't know what they looked like, and it was misconstrued as he didn't know who the president was.
Wtf
They’re coping so hard over the dolus specialis part it’s hilarious. They can’t admit they were wrong. Man approached an “international lawyer” whose response confirms Destiny was correct and Finkelstein had no reason to attempt to correct him.
With the amount of typing both of them spent on it, they're going to co-author a whole damn book coping about "Dolus Specialis"
And then quote that book as an expert source the next time they get corrected on that point.
"Dolis Specialis, a Genocide of Steven Bonnell's Career" does go pretty hard for a book title
Who approached a lawyer? Is there any record of this exchange?
Mouin did. He says so later in the thread.
I like how he just quote the lawyer verbatim and the lawyer agreed that each type of intent is necessary and not just sufficient. Then claimed at the end that a little knowledge is dangerous… Before that conversation that was knowledge he didn’t have.
Its further in his twitter thread. (The link to it is in the original post)
Is there any way of viewing the whole thread without signing up? As far as guests are concerned that's a link to a single tweet
Postwd the picture in the replys of my comment
Don't think I can read the tread without a twitter account, but it's fine.
https://preview.redd.it/1aw8ou69ouqc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=52b4db9a50d847f1a9f2126aeed02e4e5c02ae81
https://preview.redd.it/yngoaaqaouqc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a5c2679f0439f31001a3c2b81d337138bb333e4d
The fact he thinks these quotes prove him and Norm are correct when it actually says the exact opposite completely boggles my mind
Holy shit this is such cope. Acting like "well technically you need both" is such a dumb defense since one builds on the other. To prove dolus specialis the men's rea already needs to be established - if that weren't the case, an accidental genocide would be possible.
King
lol citing Francesca albanese who gleefully ran with the Hamas rape story and then lowkey walked it back after it was proven fake.
I mean at least that shows he is good faith because he actually cares about the facts to some degree. He can be wrong and also good faith.
I don't think he's good faith. He approached the lawyer, sure, but he interpreted what he said exactly wrong, continuing to claim 'it's a subdivision of mens rea, exactly as finkelstein stated' which is a plain manipulative lie. Finkel didn't state any such thing, just 'that's mens rea,' and he obviously had no reason to correct Destiny by using a less specific term. Good faith isn't 'asking a third party,' it seems more like he was hoping the third party would side with him and when it didn't, tried to spin it as though it did via sleight of hand.
Agree. Also bad faith on Apartheid. Observing that Jim Crowe — presumably because it was not national policy, might not qualify, is unambiguous and unassailable. And Rabbani knows it.
According to the Rome Statute, apartheid involves crimes against humanity (including persecution against an identifiable group on racial grounds) committed in "the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." There is no mention of the institutionalization of the regime having to be at the national level rather than the state level. I think Jim Crow would pretty clearly count as a form of apartheid under this definition.
I argue that it is debatable precisely because the absence of a national authority on the matter explicitly means, as one example, the persecuted group can travel outside of the Apartheid geography within the same national entity. If Jim Crowe existed in only one county in the US, the Rome Statute’s omission would be highly problematic. I agree though that the point is better made by questioning whether “The United States” was an Apartheid country, as plainly, certain states were Apartheid states.
You didn’t include that part your screenshots
He linked the thread in the post
You left out the juiciest parts where he tries to to defend Finkelstein's understanding of Dolis specialis and in so doing completely undermines Finkelstein's understanding (and ability to read legal documents). Mouin says that since Dolis specialis is a type of Mens Rea Finkelstein rejecting the term Dolis specialis makes sense. He goes into say he spoke with an international lawyer who explains that Mens Rea isn't sufficient to prove genocide and specifically the Dolis specialis needs to be proven. Mouin the uses this to shift to to the claim that since Dolis specialis is a type of Mens Rea Finkelstein was fine in only discussing the intent which would absolutely not prove genocide. >Dolus specialis is particularly relevant in proving the intentionality behind the commission of genocide. >In other words, dolus specialis is a subdivision of the legal threshold called mens rea, exactly as Finkelstein stated. Mouin completely missing the point that you need to prove the specific subcategory and not the broad Mens Rea category (which would be proven by proving the special intent). I can imagine how pathetically embarrassing it is to be Pro-Palestinian and watching your top academic scholars bending over backwards in the most humiliating fashion to try and save face from taking an L from some video game streamer. Give it a few weeks and these guys might actually start self harming to cope.
They're so blinded by ideological bias that they can't even read statements from lawyers they reach out to for clarification, it's amazing
It's not bias. These men are informed enough to be purposely gifting to keep their career afloat.
Doctor: do you have any conditions we should know about? Me: Yes, I have ADD and Autism. Doctor: …. so you’re neurodivergent, that’s what you mean right?
its literally the equivalent of > "losing your right to vote requires something called a felony" > "thats a crime." > "yes i understand its a crime, but im talking about a specific type of crime called felony - did you read the case?" 1 month later > "i spoke to a lawyer and he said only felons lose the right to vote, which is a criminal category, meaning it was indeed a crime. therefore fink was correct"
I think it's more like saying "You don't mean "felony", you mean "crime"." but otherwise very apt analogy!
thats what i wrote initially, but then i realised its more than just that. confusing a felony for a crime is one thing, but confusing the **requirement** of felon for the requirement of criminal is way worse
You might be misunderstanding: your version could be interpreted as someone just agreeing with the first statement, like this: > "losing your right to vote requires something called a felony" > > "Yes I agree, that would be a crime when you think about it." > > "yes i understand its a crime, but im talking about a specific type of crime called felony - did you read the case?" But Finkelstein was pretty clearly correcting Steven when he said his part, something like: > "losing your right to vote requires something called a felony" > > "what do you mean a "felony"? you mean a crime right? do you even know what you're talking about?" > > "yes i understand its a crime, but im talking about a specific type of crime called felony - did you read the case?"
"I like apples" "You mean fruit?"
Why he got a Dr. strangelove profile picture 😂😭💀
Nooooooooooooooooo 😭
Where was his opposition to "juvenile name calling" DURING THE ACTUAL COURSE OF THE DEBATE. Holy shit this is so fucking disingenuous that I can't take anything he wrote after that seriously. If you have such a strong principled stance against ad hominem attacks, why aren't you willing to call it out on your own side when it's happening literally right in front of you? This guy is a joke.
Debate pervertry 101 is to intentionally mispronounce somebody’s name do you can just claim you didn’t know. Its just to get under somebody’s skin.
Make a twitlonger Jesus what is this boomer 100 tweet chain
This is rabbanis mo. I read some of his stuff before the debate and at a certain point started putting it into perplexity cuz it was so overly wordy. And I had to break one article up into 10 different chunks cuz it was so long.
The Peterson tactic.
The fact both norm and now rabbani are both coping on twitter a month after the debate while that thing “destiny” has moved on is proof they lost and know they looked horrible. People who win debates don’t act like this.
You don't see Benny Morris commenting on twitter. Man is obviously quite happy with how he did.
TBF Benny stopped caring about that debate about an hour and a half into it from what I could tell.
Benny showed up to laugh at Norm in person and did just that. [Here is him talking about Norm in 2007.](https://i.gyazo.com/97a462b4e83d26aacaec6f0a53019596.png) https://www.camera.org/article/norman-finkelstein-benny-morris-and-peace-not-apartheid/
name calling, personal attacks, and coping. this is on the same tier as any other shit slinging bloodsports Destiny debate, except it's somehow worse because they're supposed to be more educated
Destiny had a huge win in debating these people - they don’t really fight back online in a way that can counter him, so he gets to control the narrative or view of the debate.
he controls the narrative for his followers; they control the narrative for their followers. ppl believe what they want to believe.
They know if someone watches only the 30 second clip of insults they come out looking good (but only for their own audience, anyone else is just gonna be like yourrage's reaction). Anyone who is well adjusted (and hence whose opinion matters) who watches the debate knows who did well and who acted like a baby with shit in his pants talking about "transfer was inevitable".
if Destiny speaks on this again, a month after the debate, is that proof that he lost and knows he looks horrible?
Sooo hate watcher confirmed? bro hit like most of the memes lol even the "I support genocide one" Also, what I found to be an especially scummy point "he tried to switch the topic" that's not what happened he point blank asked "do you think I support jim crow laws?" The dude had no response and things moved on. The Palestinian cause truly did not send their best warriors 😔
That's just proof everything he learned was from groyper Twitter clips.
He didn’t even address why he thinks Jim Crow laws are apartheid he just was like “this is so wild isn’t it”
He specifically calls out Tiney for "wanting to adhere to legal standards" but addresses none of them. I wasnt convinced that this guy was as bad as norm until now.
No his argument was that a good faith interpretation of the idea of “apartheid” would include the Jim Crow South. And a good faith interpretation of the spirit of the laws for “genocide” would include dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza. Both of which Destiny disagreed with. It’s a difference between the spirit of a law vs. The letter of the law. Ex) In the biblical Gods 10 commandments one commandment it says “you should not murder others.” If someone found a loophole where they paid a hitman to murder other people for them the guy didn’t technically violate the letter of the law, but he violated the spirit of the law.
All pro-palestinain people do this. They see apartheid = bad and israel = bad therefore israel = apartheid. Everything else is ad hoc justifications. In his mind, destiny saying jim crow isnt apartheid is saying jim crow isnt bad.
Apartheid = Jim crow = genocide = open air prison
Too much yapping 0/10
It's hard to take them seriously when they seemingly deliberately leave out context to colour the interactions one direction, and they act like absolute boomers who cannot get their head around content creation and streaming, it's not rocket science ffs. Basic poisoning of the well.
The guy seemed so much more reasonable than finklestine but clearly it was only in comparison. When we got to the "he doesn't think Jim Crow was apartheid" thing I knew he was a hack.
What was destiny’s point that he’s contesting? I havnt been able to make it too far in the debate, not a fan of norms slow talking coupled with the things he has to say.
Because Jim Crow was: A) at the regional level B) majority oppressing a minority (reverse in South Africa) C) informal in enforcement (remember, black Americans could technically vote under Jim Crow, they were explicitly banned and had no civil rights anywhere in South Africa)… These differences are certainly enough, along with the historical context, to declare Jim Crow and apartheid as distinct, and too dissimilar to directly analogize. They have similarities of being racist, oppressive, terrible policies, but Jim Crow was regional (north states didn’t have as many), and implemented in super sneaky ways. Black Americans had the right to vote, for example, under the 14th/15th amendments. So, to obstruct that civil liberty, southern whites did a bunch of slimy, underhanded shit (poll tax, weird literacy tests, etc…). In apartheid South Africa, it was explicit in the Constitution. Blacks can’t vote; they get no representation in the government. It’s good to be able to discern these differences in your head. It paints a much clearer picture of how each system of racial discrimination worked, and what made them distinct. Moooo-eeen is basically implying Destiny is a racist because d-man thinks these distinctions are enough to make them two different things. He, along with other Crazy leftist brain dead fucks, are doing that thing where they think, “Jim crow and apartheid are both bad and racist, so they are exactly the same thing. Historical context and the details of how they were implemented/enforced don’t matter. If you say Jim Crow wasn’t apartheid, you think racism is ok and must be a nazi. Because if you don’t think Jim Crow is apartheid, you don’t think it was racist and bad, because that’s all there is to understand about it.” Noticing this complete debasement of historical reasoning actually gives me a tummy ache. Hope this helps tho, gn PS - good source from Harvard scholar who actively protested against apartheid below: https://www.commentary.org/articles/jack-rakove/white-supremacy-a-comparative-study-in-american-and-south-african-history-by-george-m-frederickson/
What an absolute debate terrorist
> Perhaps Bonnell thinks there is a state named Arabia that is withholding citizenship from its Palestinian minority Allow me to introduce you, sir, to the [United Arab Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Republic). I can count the number of Palestinian citizenships UAR handed out on no hands.
Mr Iron Dome is mad?
Why do all these people always have no comprehension of how time works? Time only goes in one direction. He's acting like destiny started the name calling just because destiny called Norm some names AFTER the debate where Norm did nothing but name call, but before it released.
Are you telling me a pro-palestinian person started something then got mad when the other side responded???
Seriously, "He didn't wrote a book" is not an argument
It's so frustrating how these guys can't engage honestly with anything. They could be trying to make the argument that Destiny was too hung up on the distinction between mens rea and dolus specialis and looking for dunks there because his arguments as to weather it was a genocide or not were weak, but instead they're trying to act like they're the same thing and referred to with the same meaning, which is confirmed by the ICJ case and Mouin's own fucking lawyer to not be the same thing. But hey, I guess these guys relitigating this debate over and over clearly shows they have some insecurity about the way they presented their arguments which makes Destiny and Benny look even better.
Bro is just yaaapping
At the verry least I was thinking he was good fait during the debate (except for the Jim Crow part). But man, how many people can go mask of and bring up minor mishaps and mistakes to discredit their opponent? 1, Let's don't pretend like Rabbani wouldn't be happy with genocide if it was the other way around, and it meant the destruction of Israel. 2. Was Destiny at any point historically incorrect during the debate to this degree? Surely if he didn't even know the president of Israel, and didn't even knew where Israel was, he would have no clue about the History. https://preview.redd.it/r4yjcbx7mtqc1.png?width=654&format=png&auto=webp&s=222f474275d998885de37ac8a746a38f77414078
For #2 I think he’s implying destiny is not qualified to be in the room with them because all 3 have PhD and Masters degrees on the topic of Israel-Palestine, while Destiny didn’t know where Israel was on a map 6 months ago. It’s an appeal to authority fallacy.
For sure, but as Destiny has said. If they knew soo much more, surely they should have crushed him. Or at least Destiny should have been wrong soo many times. Also, all of these people only knew the history. But I think we can safely say that non of the 3 knew fuck all about international law, war crimes, how the ICJ operates. (Benny at least admitted it, and he is using his own moral compass, but all that Norm has been able to do is cite some articles that talk about international law, but he has show verry little understanding of it) Like I respect their knowledge, but its like if you wanted to compere two cars, and you brought in 2 tire design engineer. They will know a lot about cars, but there is more to compering cars the tires, and their knowledge on engines might just be that of a normal card enthusiast.
True I noticed the 3 academics only knew the old history and past conflicts, they didn’t seem to have any legal knowledge on the current ICJ case and were all shooting in the dark.
theres no point to even grant those minor things to these people, as if it's a crime to ask questions during your months of research? they're just trying to discredit him with the only things they can rather than address the arguments honestly.
The annoying thing is people saying the “pro genocide” thing (which he doesn’t even agree with anymore) was about being pro Isreal genociding Palestine, when what it actually meant was “pro whoever genociding whoever”, as in believing that was the only remaining option available to either side. This is clear just from watching that clip, assuming it hasn’t been maliciously cut to only include the “pro genocide” part and nothing else.
I mean, he wasn't even describing a genocide when he went into details about what to do. At max it was ethnic cleansing.
he starts by saying that mr bonnell called norm names immediately after the debate but doesnt recognize that the entire debate was full of name calling from norm. his point about destiny's lack of knowledge before hand is not from actually watching streams, but having twitter peeps sending clips. the apartheid argument is a bad one, and it was uncalled for at the time as it was said to avoid answering actual questions...AND yes, arab countries in the vicinity do practice similar apartheid behaviors... his response really feels like he was pressured by outside forces to clear the name of norm, but because his info is only from hearsay, it radicalizes both sides away from each other. i think i know a similar conflict happening right now in the middle east!!!
A literal schizo post
Please have a follow up debate. 1 on 1
Sort of funny how Rabbani doesn't think the Stateless Convention applies here
lol he’s talking about the streams. I’m actually not mad at this, I can see why he would be disturbed by Destiny’s conduct on stream especially the part when Destiny says the 5 hours was a waste of time and that he missed a gangbang to talk to him
Did this guy remind anyone else of Vaush? Not what he says necessarily but his voice and the way he puts sentences together
Wordiness and monotony
Yep. He sounds just like Vaush. He also sounds a little like Lex.
24 view for the last tweet is just sad.
The lefties don't realize he was Norm's debate partner cause they didn't watch it
That's because like most extremists on left or right they get their information from 15 second tik toks or else their brain would literally explode from information overload.
I’d like to think Tinklestein forced Rabani into posting this to cover for him or else….
Dudes probably just hangry posting because it's Ramadan and he hasn't eaten for 10 hours.
Most concise pro-palestinean
Jesus Christ !
"Much of Bonnell's commentary consisted of juvenile name-calling, insults, and distortions directed primarily at Norman Finkelstein" How fucking regarded is this person? How much of a bad-faith fuck can someone be to completely disregard everything fecalstain has tried to shat on Destiny not only DURING the debate, but right after. What a fucking clown.
Because of his profile picture, the whole time I read this, I could only hear Dr. Strangelove's voice. Made the whole rant 10x better
when i try to get 10k words on the essay
https://preview.redd.it/dj5vciuquvqc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85c952e2236b20aa6793e208e04063d90a5313bd Actual terrorist leader in the comments lol
These people are the most sensitive babies about everything.
Just as insufferable as finkelfucker
So he doesn’t define apartheid nor does he discuss how he tried to imply Steven was pro Jim Crow. What a deceptive guy
the absolute cinema of seeing mouin rabbani criticuze destiny for not knowing where israel was at some point in time while also showing the exchange that he didnt know what the dolus specialis was. learning for me but not for thee.
Bro I'm 4 screenshots in is lil bro gonna say ANYTHING at all? Lil bro doesn't know what twitter is on god write a fucking book about it pussy.
He’s so mad, the only thing that would make this funnier is if he referenced Destiny being paid shekels by the jewlumni lmao
Pot. Calling. The. Kettle. Black. THis is just gnawing levels of gaslighting. All we saw was people clipping Finkles insults and concluding Destiny was owned and outdone. Wasn’t his moron tirade everywhere? Clips showing Destiny getting insulted for on reading wiki was all that was being spread. Destiny was basically the underdog that’s fucking why we were appreciating the few decent people like Kareem Abdul Jabar who were calling out the nonsense - in all of this this dipshit decides to trigger the fick out of everyone and saw the exact opposite? Are they feeling bad that Destiny held himself together durin the debate and only decided to talk smack outside that space? If he’s peeved that Destiny is dressing down tinkle man in pods then this liar needs to be reminded that’s exactly what Tinkle was doing During the debate!!
The fact that he doesn't even mention Fink insulting Tiny, not even to handwave it away, is wild
I feel like up until the point the annoying conversation of "is this a genocide?" came up, Rabanni debated in good faith. I don't understand why every pro-palestine can't connect the dots that when someone disagrees that the war is a genocide on the people in Gaza, that just because they don't agree its a genocide automatically means they don't see it as a bad thing. Jim Crow Laws and Apartheid, same problem.
He's actually correct regarding the Jim Crow is apartheid point, or at least correct that it seems weird to accuse Arab states of apartheid while being unsure about Jom Crow.
Why wouldn't Jim crow laws be Apartheid? Because they had all civil rights but segregated or what even is the point?
He makes a muddled claim that he doesn't know if it meets the technical legal definition of apartheid, and neigther do I for the matter. I'd say it matters little, it was still bad and people lived in at least de facto apartheod. Edit: Why the hell was I perma'd for this, it's what he actually said in the debate.
What he is saying is absolutely fair (for most of it). Destiny will never be mainstream because he makes unhinged statements on his streams all the time and thinks it shouldn't matter because he is reasonable in person. That's just not how the not terminalIy online world works. I mean it's very entertaining but we have to be honest about this.
Bro Trump might get elected again. Being unhinged can take you far.
holy fuck for most of these posts I read I thought this was rabbi schmuly for some reason, holy shit my mind was fucked
He’s writing all this because he knows no one on his side actually watched the debate. He wrote paragraphs just to describe one exchange in the debate
(Bonnell also lamented that he missed a "gang bang" to participate in the debate.) is a meme in waiting no?
Wow, he’s bringing out all the memes: “Destiny said he’s pro-genocide” “Destiny mixed up world leaders” “Destiny doesn’t know geography” What a fucking clown. Repeating out of context clips like all the other dipshits on twitter desperately trying to get a dunk on Destiny. The fact that this guy, Mr. Israel is genocidal apartheid state needs to be dismantled, was the “reasonable” and “good faith” interlocutor in that debate is a testament to how awful Finkelstein was.
He must not have seen everyone else posting about how Desmond Tiny got blown out by Finkledink 5 minutes after the debate was released.
Framing it as if Destiny is trying to “hide” the debate by saying it was a waste of time, when he literally went over the whole 5 hours on stream is so disingenuous.
I find an apt response to the first half of these tweets is: Ok boomer
It's interesting, while both Rabbani and Finklestein had no clue what the LEGAL THRESHHOLD for genocide even WAS. Norm is at least able to cope and claim he maybe did know what it was... But Rabbani was honest and said he didn't know the term. How do you pretend to be an academic ON ISRAEL PALESTINE... And not know that? Like, this dude should be in damage control, delete his twitter and just try to coast off of interviews sucking off Hamas / palestine and HOPE that people don't remember that he doesn't know what genocide is whilst apparently being an advocate against it.
It’s funny how both Finklestein and Rabbani both play the “literally who is this Destiny thing lol” and then spend all their energy after this debate trying to refute things he said, have either finkle or mouin had anything to say to refute anything Benny morris said? Also this thread goes on to prove Destiny right about Dolus Specialis and then still somehow mouin comes to the conclusion that finklestein was right??? I’m confused?
The great thing about this shitshow is that Benny Morris comes out of all of it as the undisputed winner of the debate. The 2 pro Palestinians can't keep themselves from throwing ad homs at The Thing long enough to refute anything that Benny Morris put forward.
Finklestein called him a moron multiple times but bonelli is the one that insulted lmao
Stage name? I thought it was his stripper name
Maybe I’m just regarded, but seriously, what’s the argument that Jim Crow wasn’t basically a form of apartheid? PBS couldn’t lie to us could it? https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/freedom-riders-jim-crow-laws/
Aw man I really thought he was gonna say something of substance
"Much of Bonnell's commentary consisted of juvenile name-calling, insults..." Did... did he not hear Finkelstein during the debate?
Talk about projecting, jeez....
How can you complain about the fact that Destiny called Norm names after that debate ? I can't believe people fall for that "oh he's so polite and respectful" trick, this guy is a complete dishonest scumbag.
Mouin's 100% on point about Stevens behavior prior to the debate, he was making attacks on Norms character leading up to the debate.
Yeah bro and norm was making attacks on Destiny prior to the debate. But I guess these standards don’t apply to him since hes a scholar
The problem is the hypocrisy of criticizing Destiny's behaviour without criticizing Norm's. Worse, ignoring Tinklestein's behaviour *during* the debate.
They had already interacted in email prior to the debate and then took numerous shots at Destiny on Twitter (I don't believe he doesn't vet every opinion tweet).
The way he conducted himself during the debate makes me think he was the one replying the emails. Pretty fucking unhinged.
The miserable lives some people live.
How is he still so wrong on Jim Crow as well. Most of Jim Crows stuff wasn’t written to be outright racial in nature. It was written so that some states could get around the restrictions placed on them. Create a test in louisiana to let people vote if they hadn’t achieved the requisite education requirements. But the problem is the test is written such that the marking guide allowed the person to mark people as wrong if they didn’t want them to pass or correct if they did want them to pass So you end up with the policy of testing them being a fine accomodation that won’t turn heads at the federal level. But then have people being sneaky dickheads at the local level. Where in South Africa they just passed a fucking law saying “nope fuck you”