You bastard! You stole my post!

Fuck it, here it is in Comment form:

So, I watched this Sargon video of a debate between Vaush and Destiny. And while normally I wouldn't care about an argument between a Leftist and a Leftist, I have to point out the extra-ordinary rationalization of lynchings that Vaush and a bunch of his Leftist sycophants are making. This is the rationalization of someone who will murder you and your entire family without batting an eye because he believes the lynch mob is a moral agent in and of itself.

Hence, this kind of thought process needs to be exposed.

One argument he makes is that it is a 'dangerous precedent' to allow someone to defend themselves if the lynchmob decides to attack someone they believe is a threat. He claims that it would be a terrible precedent to allow someone to kill many people who are attacking a shooter, rather than simply succumbing to the will of the lynchers. EVEN IF the shooting was justified.

This is some genuine Reign of Terror/Jacobin/Robespierre level insanity on it's own. That you must submit to the will of the lynchmob because they suspect you of being in the wrong... in order to protect the lynchers from violence. At no point are the lynchers required to not murder you; you are simply required to submit to their will and pray for whatever mercy they may or may not decide to allow you.

And just to be clear, Destiny objecting to removing an individuals right of self defense is sociopathy to the Left. I can only assume that this is because the Left has redefined sociopathy to 'anyone that is not of the lynch-mind is anti-social and has a pathologized socialization, therefore making the a sociopath'.

S O C I O P A T H

holy shit destiny is a socipath [sic]

This comment is particularly galling:

THE CROWD LITERALLY DOESN'T KNOW, THEY CAN'T GET THE PLAY BY PLAY OF WHAT'S GOING ON, IT'S ON THE GUNMAN TO DE-ESCALATE

It takes the abandonment of personal responsibility to the lynchmob, runs with it, and rejects the lyncher's agency. And if the lynchers have no agency, their victim must use his agency in order to make the lynchers stop killing them... whenever the lynchers feel like it.

Why would you remove yourself if you were innocent? That's shady as fuck

HE RAN AWAY ?????? IF YOU'RE INNOCENT AND SURROUNDED BY WITNESSES YOU DON'T RUN AWAY

Note the additional rationalization of: running from the lynch mob justifies the lyncher's attack on you.

They are far more likely moving to disarm than with act with lethal force [sic]

This is another style of comment that came up. The idea that the lynchmob can be trusted to disarm you, but then not kill you, even though the lynchmob in the comment section is screaming that the shooter was an active shooter who was slaughtering innocent people. That you can't know that the lynchmob will kill you when they disarm you, despite the fact that all humans on Earth understand the danger of someone reaching for your gun.

As for Vaush, you simply can't pass judgement on a mob that is attacking you. You have no right to just assume that when they attack you, that they'll kill you, and therefore you shouldn't be using lethal force to defend yourself. Now, in the real world, even if they didn't intend to kill you, lynchmobs typically use such reckless amounts of force that grievous bodily harm and death are possible and likely even without a direct intention of killing you. This is why you should defend yourself from the BLM and Antifa lynchers that are attempting to punt you in the fucking skull.

But then there's this gem. Hold onto your butts:

"In fact, by the way, I just want to say, if you're running from someone and you fall down, and you turn around and there's someone pointing a pistol at you, 2 feet in front of you, and they haven't fired, I think that's more of an indication of non-lethal intent than it is lethal intent."

That's a real quote.

If you're running from people who are trying to kill you, and you turn around and see a gun in your face: that's an indication of non-lethal intent from the guy pointing a pistol

Welcome to 2020.

However, Destiny makes one of the most based fucking points I've heard from the Left in a while:

"Your chat doesn't care about black people. They're socialists."

They didn't like the truth.

Vaush actually goes on to clarify his position even further and re-iterate that there is going to be less of a chance of violence and death if you surrender to the mob, than if you shoot into the mob that won't stop attacking you. Sargon and Destiny both think this is a disingenuous position, but I don't think so. This is a purely collectivist position. A violent mob attacking a single person could lead to two outcomes. In the first outcome, the victim surrenders and is literally torn to pieces and beaten to death with his own arms and legs. Only one person dies. In the second outcome, many members of the violent mob are shot, and some are even killed. Thus, not accepting your dismemberment by the lynchers is less violent, and the better option.

That's why this galling exchange happened:

Vaush: "Why are you talking as if we haven't seen months of videos from BLM protests were people were mobbed and lived?"

Destiny [mind slightly broken]: "Don't we have several examples where people were mobbed and killed?"

Vaush: "Yeah, that's the coin flip."

Defending yourself with lethal force, guarantees that the person attacking you will get mauled or killed. But not defending yourself means that there's a 50-50 chance that a person (specifically you) will die. Therefore, it's better for you to potentially die, than for them to be stopped.

You bastard! You stole my post!

Fuck it, here it is in Comment form:

So, I watched this Sargon video of a debate between Vaush and Destiny. And while normally I wouldn't care about an argument between a Leftist and a Leftist, I have to point out the extra-ordinary rationalization of lynchings that Vaush and a bunch of his Leftist sycophants are making. This is the rationalization of someone who will murder you and your entire family without batting an eye because he believes the lynch mob is a moral agent in and of itself.

Hence, this kind of thought process needs to be exposed.

One argument he makes is that it is a 'dangerous precedent' to allow someone to defend themselves if the lynchmob decides to attack someone they believe is a threat. He claims that it would be a terrible precedent to allow someone to kill many people who are attacking a shooter, rather than simply succumbing to the will of the lynchers. EVEN IF the shooting was justified.

This is some genuine Reign of Terror/Jacobin/Robespierre level insanity on it's own. That you must submit to the will of the lynchmob because they suspect you of being in the wrong... in order to protect the lynchers from violence. At no point are the lynchers required to not murder you; you are simply required to submit to their will and pray for whatever mercy they may or may not decide to allow you.

And just to be clear, Destiny objecting to removing an individuals right of self defense is sociopathy to the Left. I can only assume that this is because the Left has redefined sociopathy to 'anyone that is not of the lynch-mind is anti-social and has a pathologized socialization, therefore making the a sociopath'.

S O C I O P A T H

holy shit destiny is a socipath [sic]

This comment is particularly galling:

THE CROWD LITERALLY DOESN'T KNOW, THEY CAN'T GET THE PLAY BY PLAY OF WHAT'S GOING ON, IT'S ON THE GUNMAN TO DE-ESCALATE

It takes the abandonment of personal responsibility to the lynchmob, runs with it, and rejects the lyncher's agency. And if the lynchers have no agency, their victim must use his agency in order to make the lynchers stop killing them... whenever the lynchers feel like it.

Why would you remove yourself if you were innocent? That's shady as fuck

HE RAN AWAY ?????? IF YOU'RE INNOCENT AND SURROUNDED BY WITNESSES YOU DON'T RUN AWAY

Note the additional rationalization of: running from the lynch mob justifies the lyncher's attack on you.

They are far more likely moving to disarm than with act with lethal force [sic]

This is another style of comment that came up. The idea that the lynchmob can be trusted to disarm you, but then not kill you, even though the lynchmob in the comment section is screaming that the shooter was an active shooter who was slaughtering innocent people. That you can't know that the lynchmob will kill you when they disarm you, despite the fact that all humans on Earth understand the danger of someone reaching for your gun.

As for Vaush, you simply can't pass judgement on a mob that is attacking you. You have no right to just assume that when they attack you, that they'll kill you, and therefore you shouldn't be using lethal force to defend yourself. Now, in the real world, even if they didn't intend to kill you, lynchmobs typically use such reckless amounts of force that grievous bodily harm and death are possible and likely even without a direct intention of killing you. This is why you should defend yourself from the BLM and Antifa lynchers that are attempting to punt you in the fucking skull.

But then there's this gem. Hold onto your butts:

"In fact, by the way, I just want to say, if you're running from someone and you fall down, and you turn around and there's someone pointing a pistol at you, 2 feet in front of you, and they haven't fired, I think that's more of an indication of non-lethal intent than it is lethal intent."

That's a real quote.

If you're running from people who are trying to kill you, and you turn around and see a gun in your face: that's an indication of non-lethal intent from the guy pointing a pistol

Welcome to 2020.

However, Destiny makes one of the most based fucking points I've heard from the Left in a while:

"Your chat doesn't care about black people. They're socialists."

They didn't like the truth.

Vaush actually goes on to clarify his position even further and re-iterate that there is going to be less of a chance of violence and death if you surrender to the mob, than if you shoot into the mob that won't stop attacking you. Sargon and Destiny both think this is a disingenuous position, but I don't think so. This is a purely collectivist position. A violent mob attacking a single person could lead to two outcomes. In the first outcome, the victim surrenders and is literally torn to pieces and beaten to death with his own arms and legs. Only one person dies. In the second outcome, many members of the violent mob are shot, and some are even killed. Thus, not accepting your dismemberment by the lynchers is less violent, and the better option.

That's why this galling exchange happened:

Vaush: "Why are you talking as if we haven't seen months of videos from BLM protests were people were mobbed and lived?"

Destiny [mind slightly broken]: "Don't we have several examples where people were mobbed and killed?"

Vaush: "Yeah, that's the coin flip."

Defending yourself with lethal force, guarantees that the person attacking you will ge mauled or killed. But not defending yourself means that there's a 50-50 chance that a person (specifically you) will die. Therefore, it's better for you to potentially die, than for them to be stopped.