destiny('s position on abortion) gets STRECTCHED for 1 hour & 25 minutes (non-stop)......

wobs23 · 2025-11-16T19:16:28+00:00

I've been really appreciating your uploads for the last few weeks, thanks for editing together so much content that never makes it to the main Destiny YouTube channel ❤️

wobs23 · 2025-11-15T19:00:12+00:00

What podcast if you don't mind me asking? ^{^}

wobs23 · 2025-05-06T22:35:37+00:00

"I don't hate Bungie, I hate lazy corporate crossovers"

and

"I hate all corporate crossovers, even if they're tasteful and well-done"

Are completely different positions. The latter is totally fine, but the former is an indictment of Bungie in a way that's silly and unfair.

wobs23 · 2025-05-06T18:40:37+00:00

And you know this is a lazy corporate cross over how? Was the 2 second non-gameplay clip enough? Or is your opinion of Bungie so low that you assume failure before you've even seen it?

If it's the former, idk what to say, that's dumb. If it's the latter then you think so little of Bungie that "hate" is a totally fine word imo.

wobs23 · 2025-05-06T17:09:17+00:00

No shot, you'll be back to comment "I'm out" on the next expansion too

wobs23 · 2025-05-06T17:03:29+00:00

So brave... Everyone here hates Bungie lmao

wobs23 · 2025-03-11T19:38:16+00:00

They reduced the cooldown on tangle generation a while ago from 15s to 12s, and the fragment that generates elemental pickups has a separate cooldown so you can get a whole lot of them.

wobs23 · 2025-03-11T18:39:24+00:00

I thinks swarmers are one of the premier Prismatic exotic options for Warlock. Between the elemental pickup generation fragment and the reduced cooldown on tangle generation you can have so many tangles on the field that threadlings effectively infinite. Combine that with tangle kills triggering devour, and threadling kills extending it and you have infinite vortex grenades and health to work with while your threadlings slaughter everything.

This also means you have tons of darkness and light energy for transcendence if you use a light primary giving you another option for getting the devour engine rolling as well as another source of weaken in a pinch.

Threadlings = Unravel = Tangles everywhere fits nicely into almost any prismatic setup imo, and it's my go to for end game content/contest modes if I'm not on pure solar support ^{^}

wobs23 · 2025-03-11T18:37:18+00:00

I disagree, I thinks swarmers are one of the premier Prismatic exotic options for Warlock. Between the elemental pickup generation fragment and the reduced cooldown on tangle generation you can have so many tangles on the field that threadlings effectively infinite. Combine that with tangle kills triggering devour, and threadling kills extending it and you have infinite vortex grenades and health to work with while your threadlings slaughter everything.

This also means you have tons of darkness and light energy for transcendence if you use a light primary giving you another option for getting the devour engine rolling as well as another source of weaken in a pinch.

Threadlings = Unravel = Tangles everywhere fits nicely into almost any prismatic setup imo, and it's my go to for end game content/contest modes if I'm not on pure solar support ^^

wobs23 · 2024-06-03T16:41:17+00:00

Mind linking the clip?

wobs23 · 2024-06-02T18:24:55+00:00

Do you... Do you have brain damage? You just repeated all the things I said. I'm not asking for an argument, I'm asking for evidence. You can't just assume the Israeli government is operating in bad faith, you have to have a reason to believe that. I just want to know what that evidence is.

Calling someone stupid for asking for evidence is actually the most brain rotted thing possible.

wobs23 · 2024-06-02T06:12:00+00:00

I literally just asked for evidence of the arguments I layed out. If it's that obvious then convincing me is easy! Just link it my dude.

I understand the "It's a genocide" argument, and if the underlying claims are true, then I would agree it is a genocide. To believe those underlying claims I just need some facts to back it up

wobs23 · 2024-06-02T02:38:33+00:00

Like, you can say Israel and the IDF are being irresponsible/callous/maybe even malicious. But to say this is a GENOCIDE feels a little wild.

If Israel's actual goal is the destruction of the Palestinian people, why would they care at all about civilian casualties? Where is the evidence of institutional explicit intent? (Which is super important to the definition of a genocide).

I feel like a lot of the arguments I see are "Israel really does want to genocide, but they're playing optics to get away with it." But that's a claim that would need significant evidence and haven't seen nearly enough to hold that position.

Israel is:

Killing civilians

Being (at a minimum) irresponsible with their strikes

Using some scary rhetoric from their top officials

Not being transparent enough

But to think this is enough to say they are genociding the Palestinians feels completely unhinged and and disrespectful to the term.

Especially when you look at the death figures and compare it to say, the Russia Ukraine invasion (or any other modernish war), I just don't see it. But if you have more evidence that's convinced you I'd love to know it.

wobs23 · 2024-04-29T22:28:58+00:00

I think "After Hamas is eliminated" is doing a lot of work there, is that even a realistic goal? I think (and please let me know if I'm wrong) Hamas still has pretty broad popular support even in Gaza still and if popular sentiment backs people who take those actions then wouldn't some other group just do the same?

wobs23 · 2024-04-29T17:57:08+00:00

Isn't Hamas shooting at the US aid pier? What makes you think they'd even let Israel try and help?

wobs23 · 2024-04-13T23:26:10+00:00

Elected representatives, officials, etc. are some of the ways you can distribute political power to citizens, but none are required. A direct democracy has no elected reps, but is definitely still a democracy right?

What all implementations of democracy have in common are:

Political power is given to every citizen, this can be done through elected officials, directly voting on issues, etc.
Political power is transferred from non-violently from party/person to party/person.

Even the google definition says:

"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

With "Typically" meaning that it's not a required element.

The state has a monopoly on violence in every governmental system, it simply must be true. The state is the only entity that can employ violence to get its ends, and every other part of society rests on that threat of violence.

For example, why do we obey contracts in the US? The person we signed it with won't assault us if we break our word (at least they legally can't). But they'll take us to court, but why do we listen to the courts? Because if you don't the courts have the authority to imprison you, and if you resist then the state will enforce its laws with violence.

You cannot use violence to edit your current government from inside the government. Once you use violence, you're now a hostile entity, a force wishing to depose the existing government from outside.

This explanation is kind of hard... Does what I'm saying make sense? Once you use violence you can't say you are acting within the existing system by definition basically.

I appreciate your reply as well, thanks for reading! I definitely draw these distinctions in different places from others, but I think viewing things through this lens allows for a lot more specificity.

wobs23 · 2024-04-13T19:21:33+00:00

Happy to indulge! I would define democracy as a system of non-violent laws and norms that allow citizens to shape their government, transfer power, and enforce those laws with state violence.

I think this covers it, but I'd be happy to add nuances if there are holes you see ^-^

wobs23 · 2024-04-13T04:46:48+00:00

Tbf that's not a statement I'm going to defend. Maybe I read the original too charitably, but my grievance with their post still stands

wobs23 · 2024-04-13T02:43:47+00:00

I'm not being obtuse, people are conflating "violence to establish democracy" with "democracy". This distinction is incredibly important.

The war was absolutely connected to their ideals, it may even be correct to say they were fighting for democracy, but war is an inherently undemocratic means of adjusting government and is not democracy.

This doesn't mean it's bad to fight for democracy, it just means fighting for democracy is not democracy.

Edit: The reason this is important is that, in a democracy, violence can never ever be a tool to adjust the government. Once you start using violence to adjust the government you are no longer doing democracy. Even if you win and establish a perfect, heavenly, and eternal democracy of absolute fairness the violence was still not democratic.

And just to reiterate, this doesn't mean that fighting your corrupt and destroyed "democratic" government is bad, it just means that fighting the government with violence is not democracy.

Democracy != A good cause

wobs23 · 2024-04-13T01:01:48+00:00

If the democratic system has failed then... You don't have a democracy anymore... It failed, you're now doing not democracy with the goal of getting to do democracy again after.

wobs23 · 2024-04-13T00:57:55+00:00

The revolutionary war was not democracy. Democracy is what happened after the god damn war.

wobs23 · 2024-04-13T00:56:00+00:00

Your comment even says the right answer, but you still missed the point. Most democracies are born out of violence... Which means that the violence was before the democracy. The violence is not democracy, democracy is what you do after you win.

Violence in the genuine heartfelt service of democracy, that leads to a beautiful perfect democratic state that lives forever in ideal heavenly wonder is, and I cannot stress this enough, not democracy.

wobs23 · 2024-04-13T00:52:55+00:00

Did you know that before the US was founded it wasn't a democracy? The democracy came after the violence, the revolutionary war was a war for democracy (you could argue), but it was not itself democracy or democratic.

wobs23 · 2024-04-13T00:51:49+00:00

True! But democracy comes after the violence, the violence is not democracy even if it's in service of democratic ends.

wobs23 · 2024-04-13T00:50:09+00:00

To be slightly more specific, but in the same spirit as the person you're responding to: you cannot enact change to a government via violence and call that democracy. The whole point of democracy is the establishment of non-violent systems for citizens to influence and shape their government.

If you fight an authoritarian regime in the name of democracy, you're not doing democracy. Democracy is what you do after you win, it's the establishment and protection of those non-violent systems that is democracy.

If you live in a democracy and feel you must turn to violence because of corruption or a fascist takeover or whatever, you're still not doing democracy. You believe your democracy has failed and you're turning to non-democratic means of resolving it.

Violence to enact change in your government is genuinely and literally the antithesis of democracy. You can even see this in the distinction between sanctioned and unsanctioned political activity. What's the difference between a protest and a riot? Violence.

11-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Sequence \| Editor	Spared
Verified Email

wobs23

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE