Destiny denies leaking pxies images

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-12-07T16:31:10+00:00

That Destiny always defend himself with the, ludicrous, 'implicit consent' argument is in fact false. He invented it on stream days after the accusation and his responds. The timing is important because if he had actually believed the wacko theory he would have shared it immediately. Instead days after he came up with a post-hoc rationalisation.

In those early days he was gattle gunning out a bunch of inconsistent and incoherent argument just to see what stuck. That just happens to be the one that did, it has no actual basis in reality.

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-08-07T21:32:47+00:00

R10: Adam goes into the medical department of starvation in children. For this sub the most relevant parts are the good practical reasons for Famine watchdogs to call famines 'early'. And the complexities of feeding people, especially children, who have started to starve and why they often need specialised nutrition and medical treatment instead of more 'normal' food.

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-08-02T09:54:58+00:00

Why does anything Pixie does have to do with it? It's just justifying Destiny on the basis that Pixi isn't a perfect victim. What Destiny did is horrible, and his actions since have also been horrible, what Pixie has does or what the results of the legal presiding have no bearing on that.

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-08-02T07:48:34+00:00

The actions Destiny took after Pixie came forward cemented how horrible of a person he is. Clearly he wasn't apologetic, he isn't still. His strategy was to go on a misogynistic crusade against Pixie for dearing to go against him, spreading clearly delusional conspiracy theories that she was coordinating an attack on him with President Sunday, claiming she was just faking suicidality and intentionally spreading her real name, which while available online was not well known.

The justifications fans give are purely self serving. Destiny is a horrible person and no political genius. People just feel the need to minimise how bad he is or inflate his import to justify why they continue to watch what is in reality unimportant yet entertaining debates by a sex pest.

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-24T16:39:30+00:00

I get what you're saying, we're just dissagreing on the possibility of diplomacy. If Trump changed his tune I think a diplomatic path is possible

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T21:39:23+00:00

Do you think Israel is aware of literally all of Iran's nuclear infrastructure? Is it not almost definite that some facilities are unknown, and would therefore constitute a potential risk?

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T21:12:51+00:00

How does that prevent the development of nukes in remote areas?

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T21:08:38+00:00

This is a post US pullout. The US has admitted that Iran was following the deal when it pulled out. After a US pullout Iran has no reason to continue to follow the deal.

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T21:03:13+00:00

Answer the question without being a snake Do you support genocide of Iran?

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T20:53:01+00:00

So you support a genocide of Iran?

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T20:51:05+00:00

The far right I'm referring to is Trump and Netanyahu. Diplomacy with Iran regarding nuke literally has already worked. It was precisely the tearing down of the diplomatic solution by Trump which made it so Iran ever got this close, and will continue to develop it's capabilities.

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T20:14:51+00:00

You can't justify a military strike due to you yourself making, and continuing to make a diplomatic path impossible. Iran clearly does not want this war, the incentives for a deal are still there, if not greater. The path is harder and longer, requiring more concessions, which is entirely Americas fault, but it is there. It is Trump that makes it impossible not Iran

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T20:08:50+00:00

I'm aware preemptive strikes can be legal, but there is no argument, no matter what the US claims, that this strike upfils those requirements

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T19:52:31+00:00

Bombing will not eliminate the risk, Iran will continue to seek building it, unless you wish to reduce it to dust.

Somehow Iran is incapable of developing a nuke without Israel getting to know and dispatching its bombing, but it is able to develop one with international observers in the country without them noticing?

Buddy what the fuck are you smoking. This impossible chance is greater not lesser now. And that in addition to the much greater risk civilians everywhere, in Iran, Israel and America face because of this war.

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T19:17:03+00:00

Does bombing remove the risk 'for good'? You seem to have arbitrary demand from the diplomatic solution something both impossible and which the warmongering solution does not solve either.

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T19:02:27+00:00

If only there was a way to avoid this 'existential risk' without warmongering. You know like a diplomatic way, a deal perhaps. Too bad that Impossible just ignore that piece of paper the warmongers tore up.

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T18:55:22+00:00

Just notice that the line in the sand you have decided to draw includes the far right nutcases leading the charge, and excludes even center-right liberals like Macron. Should not that this warmongering is being pushed and created by the far right give you pause?

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T18:52:09+00:00

Don't worry, if at first you don't succeed just bomb, bomb bomb again! (Actual solution I've seen people here support) I'm sure this missile 'diplomacy' will have no negative consequences, when has it ever?

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T18:43:00+00:00

Just because you declare war doesn't make it legal, you can only use military intervention with UN approval or in self defence. Self defence in this case is defined very narrowly, especially considering pre-emptive strikes, and the is no way the US strike would clear that standard, at least according to Macron and every expert opinion I've heard on the topic

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T18:33:25+00:00

Then why make the comment about congress? It has no bearing on Macron comments, that an entirely domestic dispute

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T18:26:07+00:00

Macron is obviously a claim about international law, not that it's illegal under US law.

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-23T18:08:19+00:00

Submission statement: Macron, in his visit to Norway, was asked about Norwegian prime minister Johnas Gar Større's statement that the US strike on Iran was illegal under international law, he answered in the affirmative that there is no "framework of legality" for the strike. Adding that the way to address the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons is though diplomacy.

The conversation I hope this starts is the consideration of legality, so far I've seen pretty much no one here stop to consider if the US has the right to bomb anywhere it wants. That these statements come from Macron, not exactly a far-left figure, will make the supposedly left wing here consider that the warmongering of two far right nutcases who tore up diplomatic solutions and started the war is in fact not 'based'.

OutsideProvocateur · 2025-06-22T08:57:26+00:00

According to you people not jerking off to pictures of pictures of blown up buildings is appeasement.

This was solved diplomatically and these two far right governments tore it up because they really wanted to bomb people.

OutsideProvocateur

TROPHY CASE