Destiny reviews the controversial RGR vs Doe debate that happened while he was on vacation which led to people trying to contact the bar to prevent RGR from becoming a lawyer... EDITOR'S NOTE: There is a cut for Doe's story because it's really detailed and graphic Don't harass anyone involved. Destiny enforces bans across all his platforms. Bonus content ►kzfaq.info/love/LOPC6bOBuiSBAJ16JXLAHg

I didn’t consent to Riley’s humiliation kink with this debate.

Imagine studying for the LSAT, getting admitted to law school, studying for classes, doing summer associate work, clerking for a judge maybe, and then getting intellectually destroyed by a deer.

I didn't consent to watch RGR constantly humiliate herself in public.

This person believes that if you think about a person sexually, that "violates thier consent." Tell me you've never been outside without telling me youve never been outside.

Yeah, it was the argument where Doe brings up her wearing a dress to peal the arousal of other people that Riley lost the debate here. You can't tell me that it is a violation of someone's consent for me to go out looking good to attract sexual desire from people and if I illicit that response that I am doing harm to them because i did it without their consent or the consent of those around them. That is absurd and is an argument that leads us to living in some theocratic hell hole.

I'm sorry but RGR sounds like a thought-policing monster and Doe sounds (for the most part) reasonable.

This makes me curious: removing the sexual element, does Riley think is it immoral to imagine hitting someone in the face? Has the imagined person been assaulted in some way?

Riley is so dishonest. The consistent blinking, the disgusted faces when sex is brought up, the misuse of the term "getting off", the deliberate yet incorrect usage of legal terms and tests is just too much. Lost a tonne of respect here tbh

It's honestly kind of hypocritical for Riley to be upset about the morally loaded language. She was definitely doing it too when she kept saying, _*"in front of children"* with so much emphasis. She also was trying to use the term "sex act" in a really weird way. I feel like she's doing it because she knows that term has a certain weight to it and that if she can re-characterize something as a "sex act" that she can play off the visceral reaction people have to it.

Damn, RGR actually got destroyed imo. Just seems like they were consistently failing to understand Doe. The JLP comparison was actually dead on.

I “used” the hell out of Victoria Secret catalogs as a teen. Didn’t realize I needed the models’ consent. Oops!

This was my first experience watching an RGR debate, and I can say I'm beyond disappointed. I've heard a lot of crazy accusations about Doe but she seems totally reasonable here; Riley comes off like a know-it-all high school teacher

Viewer Depression is Advised

This type of thinking is dangerous. Trying to control others thoughts by imposing your own morals on them. It's simple, physical actions require consent. Nothing that happens solely in someone's brain requires consent from anyone.

Riley muting Doe over and over was absolutely pathetic. That was unbelievably ridiculous and immediately ruined the debate. Riley only looked "okay" for around 5 minutes in this entire conversation. One of the worst discussions i've heard. Loved it, can't wait for the next one.

Dam riley saying that dressing sexual is a sex act?! That literally IS the “she was asking for it” argument.

I really like this video. Everything about it is interesting, especially the petty stuff. What really triggered me though is how Destiny recognizes unequal audio in a debate is garbage, but yet he does it all the time anyway

Destiny: “almost everyone agrees on 90% of opinions” Also Destiny: “their stealing all of my opinions”

Destiny’s “trauma dumping” take here was dumb as hell, it isn’t trauma dumping if the experience is relevant to the topic

I think doe throwing out its CSA experience was perfectly relevant. Because the biggest problem with Rileys arguement is that she uses words and terms in such a vague way as too make them useless in any real setting. That will lead to extreme real world harm because it muddys the waters. In the same way that Qanon bull leads to MORE harm to kids then preventing harm. Because Rileys conseptions of these topics are so backwards, when presented with a REAL CSA scenario, not a hypothetical, she is actually a unable to point out the harm. It renders her perception useless.

The ironic thing in all of this is that RGR thinks she is right after all of this

@1:25:31 Muting her was such a bad look.... Riley's been interrupting Doe so much and now that Doe is finally asserting herself a little bit by ignoring Riley's interruptions she decides to mute her... Riley..... Girl..... The whole argument is whether you called her a Pedophile or not, you can't mute her when shes trying to make the argument why she thinks you called her a pedophile. She was just way too triggered to have this conversation.

Doe: I like to dress sexy Riley: Haram Riley unironically made sharia law type arguments lmao

Riley was so unbelievably bad faith here. This entire conversation kinda changed my opinion on her. I like her a lot and enjoy chiming into her streams often, but I don't think I support this type of thought policing, very dystopian for her to invoke some consent doctrine over what people think.

Damn RGR pretending like she’s in a court room in this one. Ended up making her look super bad

The passive-aggressiveness in this conversation was VERY off-putting.

If someone had asked if they could watch porn in the Starbucks lobby instead of just doing it I think it would have been 100% more awkward

Hour long video ✔ Drama I dont care about ✔ I dont know anyone in the video apart from Destiny ✔ Lets get stuck in, shall we?

As a utilitarian, Riley just sounds insane to me. If there's no harm done, even including an apparent violation of consent (nothing should be bad in and of itself, there has to be an empirical reason for why something is harmful) it shouldn't be a bannable offence. Her world just seems like one that would reek of censorship and oppression.

Damn Riley needs to learn you don't necessarily lose a debate by leaving first. Once things got to the level they did, her courtroom prosecutor acumen made her look unempathetic to the point of being a real sicko.

Riley is post hoc rationalizing her entire moral system. She's basically saying "these are the outcomes I want" and then when someone says they disagree and presents an alternative system, her only way of fighting that is to say "but your system could be used to justify x", which is not a real argument against x. The correct response to someone saying this is "yes, if it can be justified, then it's not wrong." Unfortunately this response is extremely susceptible to grandstanding, depending on how optically bad "x" thing is, because it's working from a circular position of the thing being wrong to begin with. Either knowingly or unknowingly, she uses this susceptibility to try to eke out an optical win, doing things like acting flabbergasted, raising her voice, and shouting things like "wow!" Unfortunately this isn't a real argument. It's essentially the equivalent of someone who hates gay people saying "yeah but if I accept your moral system, I'd have to accept gay people, and that's gross, so therefore it can't be right." Fundamentally there is no difference between the validity of those two positions. The only deciding factor on correctness is who happens to be listening, since it relies entirely on optics and grandstanding. Pretty much any argument that has to resort to "think of the children!" is almost always guilty of this. It's just a tactic to try to rally soccer moms to your side, and pull on their emotional heartstrings, when you know an argument holds no real water logically.

The flaw in this conversation was that the individual who needed to elaborate on their opinion via hypothericals was Riley, because SHE CLAIMED that her statement was being misunderstood. But she strategically avoided elaborating on her statement by INSISTING that she be the one to posit the hypotheticals...and Doe be the one to engage in them instead. She used the same tactic when she was on Vaush's stream.

These kind of conversations make me hate being alive lmao

These people like Riley, want to stop us from having healthy human desires. EVERYONE has had sexual thoughts about people they’re not in a relationship with. It’s a personal thought. I find Riley’s way of thinking about this more worrying. It’s not healthy or “normal” to think like this.

If I sing a copyrighted song to myself in the shower, I owe the artist royalties according to RGR.

I get the feeling Riley is repulsed by sex in general, for one reason or another.

Imagine drinking the 1:04:44 'I just dress for myself! Not for anyone else to look at.' cool-aid so much that you arrive at the conclusion: 'All women who wear clothes in part to attract interest from men are violating the consent of everyone around them. Committing immoral sex acts in the process.' And then ironically thinking they are on the correct side of the 'she was asking for it' argument while literally saying the woman is the one in the wrong.

Riley is an actual lawyer in the same sense that Doe is an actual deer.

18:09 One interesting thing is that it seems Riley wants to be SUPER SPECIFIC about the words she used whenever it comes to whether or not she called Doe a pedophile, but suddenly wants to get very GENERAL (If you are "AROUND" kids is it "A LITTLE REASONABLE") whenever it comes to Doe's argument. I feel like I've noticed a LOT of people doing this lately, I think Destiny even brought it up in the corn debate by saying "You keeping getting SUPER specific when it benefits you then SUPER GENERAL whenever you find out that argument does nothing for you."

Why does Riley argue that arousal and climax are both getting off, then limit her examples to people climaxing in public despite the fact that Doe sees a huge distinction between these two things?

"You might be a trauma victim, but I'm not gunna be a drama victim" I'm absolutely certain I'll say this phrase sometime in the future.

I don't understand why people think if they put their hands on their head and act aghast towards the other person, that you suddenly win the argument. It's so fucking cringey to see, this is so bad faith on Riley's part idk why we're saying we like her (I don't know her at all). Slimy debate tactics to win a debate and frame the other person as a bad person. Super super slimey and bad faith on Riley's part.

So this Riley person is in law school? This is the exact type of person that should not practice law.

While it is wrong to go after someone’s employment, I have to say Riley probably shouldn’t have anything to do with Law. Considering she has such an extreme idea of consent.

Man it's terrible of me but I have to work double time to think objectively about this conversation, simply because RGR's tone is so harsh and grating while Doe's speaking voice is so much gentler and earnest sounding.

lost to a deer lmao

I had to bail on this one. it was just too passive aggressive. I'd sooner listen to outright hostility than two people doing optics and going "m-hmm" to each other every sentence.

I can't get my head around the idea that Riley literally said that if you're primarily looking at someone to purchase them for sex, that they aren't primarily driven by sexual desire... In what world do sex slavers look at a person to buy, and it's not primarily for sex...

My simple take from all of these weird gender, sex and kink discussions is that I'm glad I can just turn it off, go outside, touch some grass and never interact with any of it IRL. The only trans person I've ever met was my physics teacher (female to male) and he was just a regular dude who I didn't even realize was trans until after I graduated. That's about where my interest starts and ends and seeing all the craziness around it, specially on twitter, I'm hopeful it stays that way, cuz holy fuck would I sound insane if I were to start describing this debate to some random person in my life. Edit: Just to clarify, I know this specific debate is more focused and isn't really about trans people, I'm just talking broadly about the recent conversations and debates in Destiny's community, including everything from xenogenders, neopronouns as well as this one which is essentially a continuation of the kink debate. The online discourse kinda broke me and blackpilled me on lot of the LGBTQ+ movement.

That was most certainly not a friendly start lmao.

So, taking a picture of someone that doesn't consent to it for the purpose of masturbating to them is a sexual act. But buying a person for the purpose of "R wording" them is not. That's what I got from Riley's position. Can someone explain if I misunderstood her?

not going to lie i only really heard horror stories about doe, but they actually seem very respectable. they can engage in a discussion without devolving into psychosis. its so sad that twitter culture ruined my perception of this person and probably any healthy interaction with them and destiny.

Honestly while neither of them were great at all RGR came across as truly unbearable. Even if she was entirely in the right idk if it would have mattered with such shitty behavior on her part

I like RGR generally speaking but can't deny she lost the plot here. Dont think she deserves to be harassed to the point of suicidal thoughts but criticism for her takes here are justified imo. Shame

Okay Riley annoy me, she keeps trying way to hard to get her agenda through and as soon as it doesn’t work, she keeps backtracking and try to twist the situation. Every time Doe comes back with something, Riley keeps interrupting and attacking instead of actually listening

I wonder if in 10 years we'll look back and wonder why these people became somewhat popular in the first place. I've never listened to a conversation I care less about.

Doe had a really good argument. Riley just kept cutting Doe off soooooo much and honestly its annoying. Im tryna hear the debate not just one persons voice.

30 minutes in, after only being a DGGer I came in thinking I liked Riley and that Doe was gonna be unbearable but yikes that idea was reversed

The "using people for sex" rhetoric... while referring to fantasizing about someone. That was pretty dishonest.

There is nothing wrong with expressing your sexuality, your sensuality, in what you wear. I remember being a young woman and wearing clothes that were an expression of my sexuality. It’s been going on for decades. We are visual creatures, in many ways. Riley is perverting this.

Riley's take on "vacuolating consent" is actually crazy to I THINK.. anyone who is sane? I feel actually awful for them here cause that means they have not once, ever, had a fantasy about a crush or even their significant other, cause even if you are dating, you can't just fantasize about them, cause they cannot consent.. like that's actually insane to me.

Riley went a bit nuts, even accidently at best. Doe was far more reasonable here. And so were it's arguments. However it did completely destroy the silence is violence argument. So it has to be consistent with that in the future. But, Riley is totally of the rails here. She got lost in a debate bro, super logic vortex.

22:09 we're reaching levels of passive aggressive that shouldn't even be possible

Be careful with your wording Destiny, a mad corn on the cobb is out to get you :o

When will people realize asking the same question after getting an answer that they dont like just makes you look like you're way in over your head.

Why have I been hearing for the last 3 days that Destiny sided with RGR when its obvious he didn't?

How to interpret "sorry" is the funniest thing I've heard in a while lol.

When your argument becomes thought crimes, you've failed.

"You are going to STOP saying something I disagree with, because it's not true" - interesting debate technique there RGR.

After all this, I’m convinced Riley has very weird views of sexuality.

"Have you seen it?" "Seen what?" "No, who" "What?"

people who elevate consent to some sort of unassailable religious belief are creepy and I try to avoid them before they perceive that I have violated their consent in some nebulous way

23:38 - So because the 'Law' started in a poor place and evolved into a much better place, it can't be trusted in this conversation which inevitably revolves around nuance, law, and sexual deviancy?????? Did I miss something? Just because you started someway doesn't mean you need to end that way.

Daily Shoutout to the editor, Dudes a beast

Destiny's smooth voice helped me drop this huge turd.

I was really hopeful for RGR as a streamer because I like a lot of her takes, but now I wonder how she's actually reaching her conclusions. I could never quite put my finger on the issue in some of her other debates, but this is a perfect example of post hoc rationalization. She seems to identify things that she intuitively thinks are either good or bad and then tries to build an argument around it. She could literally just say, "I don't like the idea of this because some of the potential outcomes are uncomfortable for me to think about." You don't have to rationalize everything (though I prefer to do so). Some things are just gonna make you irrationally uncomfortable or agitated. It seems to be a part of being human. Doe did really well at first and then, overall, this devolved into a fucking dumpster fire. Disappointing on both fronts.

If you claim someone supports pedophile, your pretty much calling them a pedophile, if I claimed destiny supports kkk, I am pretty much calling you a member

Imagine if you lacked the ability to detect passive aggression, what would this shitshow sound like? 🤔

Right into my feeeeeeed

at 1:00:00 RGR says the quiet part loud and i'm glad that doe picks up on it. "This system is good because it lets me condemn that behaviour" yes, riley. we know that you're working to justify your position post hoc.

There's a simple way to shut this down - if it's violating someone's consent to think about them whilst masturbating, is it also violating their consent to think about them? Is it violating their consent to imagine them doing something non-sexual? after all, they didn't consent to being visualised in any capacity, right? This is such an obvious virtue-signal from RGR, the practicality of their arguments is non-existent.

25:30 one thing they always told us in CPR/lifeguarding certification is that consent is always implied if there is no response. I guess you could argue that someone unconscious might not want to be saved but that’s dumb and stupid.

According to Riley‘s logic, if you like feeling and looking sexy in public, you better ask everyone in public beforehand if you have their consent to invoke desire in them first. Otherwise, you are violating their consent. This whole line of logic is so ridiculous.

As a Vaush and Destiny fan, I was interested in hearing of Destiny's perspective but I was ultimately disappointed for many reasons. If you want to bring back the lefties in or whatever, this might be a good perspective to listen to. And, watch BookSmarts, cough, cough. There's a lot of particularly bad failings in RGR's logic that Destiny fails to point out when they're so easily noticeable. I acknowledge that Destiny is friends with RGR and has bias towards her, but around the 1:11:00 timestamp, where RGR says that Doe hasn't properly showed its (Doe's) argument, after repeating it over and over again is incredible. When Doe argued that RGR was trying to get it to say something where it could be clipped, I felt like that could've been a good moment for Destiny to come in and say, "I've experienced this shit before, (example.)" Where he could've used Vaush and Kyle Rittenhouse, or the many other examples where he's been clipped out of context, to relate to Doe's frustrations during the debate. When RGR corners you into saying a Yes or No answer and remove all context, as a viewer, that does come off as her trying to clip it out of context. I'd also disagree with Destiny's implication that RGR did not call Doe a pd00ph11e because she didn't explicitly mention it. It's not a good look, especially when I've seen RGR's girlfriend's tweet, which implied it much more heavily. I know it's not mentioned in the debate, but considering the context of this starting on Twitter. I think it'd be good, if Destiny, attempting to be responsible, would've clarified that mention more of the twitter beef. Around timestamp 1:37:00, I also didn't appreciate Destiny's comment about Doe's personal story; although Nuclear, still coincided with the debate and properly showed Riley's moral failings if she considers someone buying Doe as just an action of purchasing power rather than an inherent sexual desire to fuck. I also believe editing it out, even if the editor's note has a disclaimer that it was cut out for being graphic, it's important to the crux of the debate and removing it and RGR's reaction to it. Like, it feeeeeels like you're just trying to remove sympathy from being given to Doe. That's the mind of a Destiny/Vaush fan. I hope it was useful and springs up important discussions and whatever.

This is my first and only impression of these two. RGR is completely uninterested on having a conversation. RGR is only interested in winning and she still lost. Lmao

holy fuck

You might be able to get to "never violate consent" from the categorical imperative. That's one of the major problems with the categorical imperative. You make some universal maxim like "never violate consent" and then go "Oh shit, now we can't arrest criminals any more".

This is insufferable holy shit

Jesus, RGR... This was embarrassing. 🤦‍♂️

Wow, this was indeed right in my feed, it works!

Destiny started the video, I couldn't hear the video so I cranked my volume, Destiny blasting out of my headphones at 3000% volume, "Nooo, WHY IS IT QUIET!?!?". lmao

This is difficult to listen to. RGR has shit arguments and interrupts every point doe makes and Doe needs to assert themselves and get their points out before the subject gets changed.

lolz when Destiny won't even defend his friend when she's having an argument with someone Destiny hates, you know it's bad

1:07:35 This is probably the first time I've ever seen someone claim cleavage violates the categorical imperative...

The worst thing about this video is that destiny used edge.

Second I don't lose I'm August's neighbor and peep through his window to see when he's uploading

Yeah... I'm so lost in the weeds. I've watched the debate between the two; I don't understand how a tweet led to a contentious issue. Twitter is a cesspool, heh.

The destiny videos with the black background and red upper-case letters in the thumbnail.. just hits different

So if I make up an imaginary Tom & Jerry sketch purely in my mind, I'm now commiting copyright infringement I guess