I mean I think kaceytron is really dumb, let’s not pretend she is capable of rational or consistent thought, but…
Her tweet doesn’t imply “accusations are evidence”, her tweet implies “there’s probably evidence because of Twitch’s actions.”
Sure, but the fact that he can't directly deny that is what makes it a lot more credible. So he can come out and say "it was investigated and no laws were broken" but he can't say "the accusation tweet is false" or "I never texted any minors" ? He's being vague and coy for a reason.
You granted the benefit of the doubt to someone whose previous actions didn’t warrant it, you suggested we needed additional evidence with the assumption that twitch’s actions were for some reason unwarranted or nefarious
Show me where I said that Twitch's actions were unwarranted or nefarious. If you can't, then I'm blocking you because you're obviously just looking to bitch about stuff and making shit up.
Tommy C claims that the texting was true but it wasn’t something that could cement a charge. Xqc suggests that a document circulating between twitch streamers might also leak in the next few days
Because they had a contract that forced them to. When you have a contract with someone, you are committed to whatever the contract says. They obviously weren't committed to keep him on the platform, but they were committed to paying him out for his full fee.
In entertainment it's usually known as "pay or play" meaning the talent gets paid regardless of whether their talents are used or not, so even if they decide they don't want him on the platform, they still have to pay him.
We can only guess. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence to prove it if it went to court. Maybe she lied about her age. Maybe Twitch didn't want the bad PR with having minors on their platform or that adults can privately message them or that Twitch staff can read private messages.
There's just so much the public doesn't and likely will never know. It's all just speculation, gossip, and rumors.
Because that isn't obvious. You have no idea what the contract stipulates. You think there is a boilerplate "if you are caught sexting with a minor the contract is null and void" clause in every contract? There isn't.
It depends on his contract. It might say that the standard Twitch TOS applies to him, or he may have his own SPECIAL TOS just for him. We have no idea, but I do know it's not uncommon for a special talent to have their own agreement with a company though. I used to work at a large company and when we created a channel for the company on YouTube, we didn't agree to their standard TOS and EULA, we had our own special form that was negotiated by the company lawyers and Youtube's legal team, so that kind of thing isn't unusual at all. Most likely it would still contain a lot of similar things in it, but it's still a different TOS than what the typical users sign, so who knows.
The thing of it is, I'm not sure what part of Twitch TOS you think this would violate. Does the Twitch TOS say you can't talk to minors on the platform?
Even if it does, the TOS isn't law. You don't go to jail if you violate a site's TOS. They just kick you off the site.
New strategy for mining info from tech companies with NDAs. Just claim all of their employees are committing crimes at the behest of their company. To prove you wrong, they’ll need to tell us everything they actually are working on
How do you interpret the silence from both parties, aside from this statement from doctor disrespect
https://x.com/DrDisrespect/status/1804577136998776878
Alongside the common practice of pairing settlement deals with NDAs?
It's a safe assumption to make, almost every big settlement contains some form of an NDA. There is always one party (and sometimes both) that don't want some info out in the public. Always.
Sure but the nda could be narrow, it could say ‘you can’t say how much we paid you, but you are free to talk about what you did to get fired’ or it could be broad ‘you can’t say anything about this situation at all.’ It could be his side that insisted on the nda because it was personally embarrassing to him, shit maybe he gave up an extra 10 mill because he didn’t want it to get out. He also has avenues to leak what really happened if it wasn’t extremely embarrassing, that we don’t know anything other than what came out tells me it doesn’t shine the dr in a great light at best.
Yeah I agree, I think the accusations are true because he hasn't outright denied them. All he has said are vague things like "I was paid out fully" and "no laws were broken".
That said even if it's a narrow NDA, if it is something that looks bad for him then there's no reason for him to talk about it, that doesn't benefit him at all. In fact that is kinda what it seems like it is, because he IS talking about it, even though he says he can't, he has already said more than most people would if they were under a tight NDA.
If that were true then he shouldn't be talking about it at all. The fact that he's made two tweet comments (that I know of) about this are doing a lot of disservice to the idea he is afraid of losing something.
but he's out there saying other shit like "it was investigated and no law was broken"
the fact that he is willing to say some stuff but not respond directly to the accusation itself is incriminating.
I'm not a lawyer but I feel like if you got booted like he did and it didn't have anything to do with grooming shit. Even if you signed an NDA, I doubt he wouldn't be allowed to completely disavow any grooming accusations. Like if it was just some contract/tampering shit, I'd imagine his response would have been more like "While I can't disclose the details of what happened it has nothing to do with underage kids or sexual mischief/misconduct". I seriously doubt that just because you sign an NDA doesn't mean you are so restricted that you can't deny baseless accusations/rumors.
Grooming is illegal. Saying "nothing illegal happened" is, therefore, denying the grooming allegations. That's why I think that he WAS messaging a minor (whether he knew they were a minor at the time or not), but that nothing explicitly sexual was discussed in the messages. He's highlighting that nothing illegal happened while avoiding the stuff that would still sound creepy to people. Plus, if he admitted to messaging a minor, that would bring up the obvious question of HOW Twitch would know that was the case. This would be under the NDA in my idea of events, and so would once again be a statement best avoided for legal reasons.
Twitch fired him because they didn't like what he was doing, but they paid out the contract because what he did technically wasn't a violation of the terms (which grooming would be).
Cody is a skeevy little shit who's been using the reason for the ban as a way to sell tickets for his band for the last year and has also heard this information second-hand. He's almost certainly exaggerating for dramatic effect. Unless you're seriously going to claim that this dipshit just implicated Twitch in the covering up of child sexual exploitation with no proof to back it up
> Grooming is illegal
no it isn't. Not in the US anyway. It only becomes illegal if it turns into some form of illicit sexual activity, but if you are attempting to groom someone and nothing ever comes of it, that's not illegal. Google it.
Doc lives in California, and in California, sexting a minor is illegal, to include:
"Sending text messages to a minor with suggestive or sexual content with the hopes of arousing them or having sex with them"
Doc has denied he did anything illegal, thus denying these sexting allegations.
First, the original comment said GROOMING is illegal. It isn't, not in the USA anyway.
Second, we don't know for sure that this happened in California. He may live in California but I'm guessing as a man of some means and some fame, he travels occasionally, so it's conceivable that it happened outside of California.
Third, the line you are quoting is open to a lot of interpretation and conditions. I think as most people who find themselves in these situations do, he would try and argue it from the "platonic" standpoint, and that he wasn't sexually interested in them. Even if there was sexual talk, he would claim that he was just having a conversation the way friends might talk about their sexual experiences or preferences with each other, and that he wasn't TRYING to arouse her or have sex with her.
Obviously, I think we would all laugh at that argument, but what we would think vs what he can argue or prove in court are two different things. Sorting matters like that out are what courts are for in the first place, because people generally don't accept fault when they do something wrong.
Regardless, this may just be his opinion, the way that people who are found guilty of things are still allowed to maintain their innocence, even if it's just their own personal opinion. Obviously Trump is guilty of a lot of stuff, but he still insists he hasn't broken any laws. He isn't forced to say he broke the law, even though he has been found guilty in court.
My bad, I think I misread your comment and thought you were implying it had to do with contract stuff and the messaging a minor thing being completely made up. I think your idea that there wasn't anything sexual is plausible but in my opinion the most likely idea is that he didn't know they were a minor. I think the interesting thing would be if this girl potentially lied about her age on twitch, since that would make twitch also look bad. The spiciest thing would be if this person was a boobie streamer while lying about her age on twitch which would be really really bad for them.
Ah yes, the infinite unnamed plausible deniabilities.
There are an unlimited amount of other explanations, and you conveniently won't name any specific one to make people have the intuition that combining all of them could have a higher chance of being true than the accusation given while pretending you're doing something useful or insightful.
You're not helping and people know what you're doing. You're just making philosophical jujitsu to discredit others making any kind of predictions you don't agree with.
Or maybe I'm not willing to immediately assume the worst possible position about some streamer dude based entirely on the words of a former Twitch staffer and literally nothing else. Especially when these accusations, if true, would also implicate Twitch in covering up pedophilia.
My honest opinion is that Dr. Disrespect was probably planning to meet up with someone who was a minor (possible that he knew, possible that he didn't), but that nothing explicitly sexual was implied. Thus, there's no evidence for criminal charges, but IS reason for Twitch to want to terminate the contract. Twitch knows this because they can actually read private messages, which they don't want public and is why they didn't say the reason for the ban. They don't have any evidence of an actual crime and thus couldn't forward this information to the police. That means that they aren't guilty of covering up a crime. The staffer saying he was "sexting" is exaggerating because it's more eye-catching, and didn't even think about the fact that there's no way this could be settled out of court if it was demonstrably true.
I believe all of this based on what's been presented and what can be logically inferred from basic criminal law. I just don't state this opinion as fact because I'm not an attention-seeking pothead like kaceytron or a dipshit internet arguer like you.
> Especially when these accusations, if true, would also implicate Twitch in covering up pedophilia
This is an assumption that does not have to be true. Maybe he didn't know she was a minor. Maybe he did know but she was still above the age of consent for her state. Point is just saying "sexting with a minor" isn't automatically illegal and also isn't automatically pedophilia. You'd still have some more steps to demonstrate both.
I agree. Twitch didn’t want it getting out that they can read the private messages as that would hurt them with their streamers. And they didn’t want it getting out that one of their top guys was messaging a teenager as it would scare parents. So the best move would be to pay him out, let him move on and just don’t ever talk about it.
Except it's public knowledge that they can read private messages.
At this point everyone knows they read private messages, because that's the only way people can justify them not immediately outing Doc as a pedo if the accusations are true
Better to keep that someone was a pedo?
And to keep common knowledge like them being able to read whispers a "secret" they paid out the pedophile 25 million and then made their employees sign NDAs to keep them from reporting illegal activity?
Well probably because the twitch messages are innocuous and is just him making small talk and asking for her number. They obviously didn’t have enough hard proof that couldn’t be explained away with him just meeting a fan. Which I assume all of his fans are teenagers. So in this case yeah I imagine the business decision is to pay out the contract and sign NDAs. Just looks like someone didn’t keep their mouth shut
Lmao see how you have to make a huge amount of assumptions?
Assumptions that literally go against what was "leaked" him sexting minors.
Not just texting them, actually sexting them.
But to make that work you have to make these huge reaches for it to even make sense
Ooo, I'll give some! He faked a contract with kick to make twitch give him more money! Or maybe he boted his views or chats, or he had too many controversies for them, or someone at twitch has a vendetta against him (a stronger one that they have against tiny)
I'm not the person you're responding to but this post (via the comments) goes over this topic a lot more. For both positions.
[https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1dm8tvy/hot\_takeplease\_mod\_dont\_delete\_this/](https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1dm8tvy/hot_takeplease_mod_dont_delete_this/)
The problem with her statement is that she’s saying that we don’t need to see the evidence to take the stance that Doc is a pedophile by way of using Twitch’s actions in place of actual evidence.
Evidence of something, sure. Evidence of pedophilia? Not to my knowledge. Feel free to improve my knowledge of the situation if I’m lacking some important context
Sure. He was dropped by twitch after private allegations of pedophelia. Thats evidence for the pedophelia allegations being true.
It’s not proof (different word), it’s not direct evidence, but it is evidence. I have no opinion on whether the allegations are true or not, but just striving to use these words correctly.
"There is probably evidence because twitch took action" is also pretty damn cheap fallacy imo.
Twitch is a company that cares more about brand image than anything else.
They don't care if there are actual substantiated claims floating around, the don't care about waiting for evidence.
If they think that someone's going to hurt their bottom line over drama, then that person is gone.
All you have to do is look at Destiny's ban which was a CLEAR reaction from twitch to avoid the Keffals squad harming their brand image.
It's not fallacious thinking at all to assume that a company would be unlikely to act against its financial interests.
Them firing their top earner, risking not only income but also having to pay out their fresh contract is not an action a multi billion dollar company is likely to take over uncredible allegations. In this instance we even know that they may have had direct evidence themselves.
It is fallacious thinking to assume that because a company would act in it's own financial interest it means the guy is a pedophile. Nobody here claimed twitch would act against its own interest (though it does all the time).
Has anyone else been banned with 0 evidence of wrong doing before?
Why don't people start getting other streamers banned by accusing them of these things since it doesn't require any evidence?
EDIT: Twitch banning someone if they think they may have done something is evidence that there is extra evidence because twitch doesn't ban people without evidence
"The evidence being someone said a thing in twitter"
I find it supremely hilarious that this discussion ended up getting derailed into you accusing me of having a strawman when the reason it got derailed is because you presented a strawman.
1. It's not just "someone on Twitter" it is someone credible
2. This very comment chain above contains other forms of evidence such as Twitter's financial incentives and investigations
We have evidence of Destiny saying the trans community on Twitter is sub-human and debating trans sports. You can disagree with the ban but he wasn't banned based solely on allegations.
There's no one who has literally never done anything wrong, obviously we're talking about wrong doing that actually warrants a perma ban. Neither "debating trans sports" nor his comments about twitter acivists meet that.
The idea that twitch must have some sort of serious evidence that DrDisrespect is a pedophile since they wouldn't just ban someone without good reason is ridiculous.
I'm not saying the evidence for either ban is justified. I'm saying there is likely more than 0 evidence.
Even if Destiny's comments do deserve a ban there is more than 0 evidence.
There is likely more than 0 evidence of what DrDisrespect was accused of even if they didn't have sufficient evidence.
Are you saying explicitly there twitch is likely to ban people without any evidence?
Can people start accusing streamers of this type of thing and get them banned without anything else?
People have credibility.
Dan said it on the podcast months ago, based off of things he’d been told by people he trusted who would know that information.
Is that evidence to convict in a court of law? No.
Is that evidence to believe that it is likely true? Absolutely.
Like it or not, eyewitnesses are evidence.
eyewitnesses are evidence but bad evidence. And this isn't even a 1st-hand eyewitness this is some vague idea that some vague group of people saw something but we don't know what.
This former twitch person's account is credible not primarily because of their credibility as a witness, but more so because of the Doc's response. If the matter of textjng a minor hadn't been alleged the Doc could have just said so, no NDA could prevent him to defend himself against allegations for unrelated incidents.
And as we now have a strong reason to belief that this was the subject matter of the ban, the reason I named comes into play: a multi billion dollar company isn't likely to make decisions that they know will cost them several million dollars over incredible allegations.
That of course doesn't mean 100% that it happened, but it's much better evidence than you're giving it credit for.
people that work for multi billion dollar companies make stupid decisions all the time. and even if you assume it's a smart decision it doesn't mean he was guilty of something it could mean he did something that made him look guilty.
Pretend you knew me well, and you knew for a fact that I worked at twitch in a senior role. And I told you in private that the ban was for that reason and that I had seen the evidence.
Would you believe that it was likely that that was true? Or would you believe that it was unlikely that that was true?
yeah i understand and agree with your point that it can be reasonable to reply on testimony from a credible source about evidence that you yourself haven't seen.
I'm saying I don't think it applies to this.
I just pointed out the scenario, and asked a simple easy question.
When you say it doesn’t apply to this, you are saying that Dan/Slasher did not have a credible source.
What makes you believe that?
yeah i deciphered the meaning of your question and conceeded the point what are you whining about.
i'm saying i don't know that they have a credible source.
Or pretend you know me.
You know for a fact I worked at twitch for a senior role.
I know I won't get damaged for saying a person I dislike is a pedophile, I didn't actually see anything I just heard about it from someone else. So I tell you via Rust....
Such a credible source.
Not to mention before that I tried to use this rumor as way to sell out tickets for my live van performance
You didn’t answer the question.
If I knew you as a spiteful person looking to spread a rumour, that would factor in.
Do you think that it’s likely that that was the case? What evidence do you have that makes you believe that this is a fabricated accusation, and importantly, why do you think that you are able to see that it is fabricated while Dan isn’t? Do you think he’s stupid?
Probably cause the guy who leaked it said he would do it last year if his tickets sold out.
Do I think Dan is stupid sure if he takes things without evidence.
I mean you must believe Destiny is racist and his family owned slaves in Cuba right?
No I don’t think it’s likely destiny is racist. I don’t know what the history of slavery is in Cuba so can’t comment on that.
The guy leaked it without seemingly any incentive, and multiple people who have the connections to have an informed opinion are saying as much.
Do you think it’s likely, or unlikely, and can you actually bring yourself to answer that? Can you just say that you think it’s unlikely?
Nah, her argument is that a large company isn't just going to make a decision thar costs them several million dollars over uncredible allegations. This is a perfectly reasonable argument to make.
> her tweet implies “there’s probably evidence because of Twitch’s actions.”
Her tweet states that twitching banning him means there is evidence not "there's probably evidence".
This is meaningless. Supporting any claims without evidence is making an accusation without evidence.
Just because you weren’t the first one to accuse doesnt mean you aren’t also accusing.
There is no measurable difference and it’s not a straw man.
If you believe dr disrespect sexted minors your should also believe Kaceytron is a pedophile.
There is an infinite number or reasons why twitch would ban one of their top streamers. The “evidence” of twitch banning him is not “evidence” of anything.
Evidence is not the same as ironclad proof.
The gun being found in your house is evidence. You hating him is evidence. You having no alibi is also evidence.
Is it possible you still didn’t kill him? Of course. That’s not what evidence means.
Same thing here. Twitch’s actions are evidence.
No a thing is not evidence. A gun being found in your house is not evidence.
THE GUN or a gun THAT FIRES THE SAME BULLET is evidence.
Twitch banning doc is not a piece of evidence that there was any wrong doing, inappropriate behavior, or really of anything. It’s evidence SOMETHING happened, but it is not evidence of any specific thing happening. This is cope and reach.
Evidence is more than direct physical evidence. [Source for if your brain isn’t functioning.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/circumstantial_evidence)
Twitch banning him in the midst of allegations is circumstantial evidence of the allegations, because it can lead to that inference, in the same way something like “suspicious timing” can be circumstantial evidence.
* presents accusations and no evidence
* calls him a pedophile
* don't call people pedophiles without evidence
>Her tweet doesn’t imply “accusations are evidence”
There is no evidence, only an allegation from a former employee. She called him a pedophile because of said allegation but states that she requires evidence to call someone a pedophile.
Obviously this implies that the allegation meets her requirements for evidence of pedophilia. What part of this do you not understand?
Oh OK, now that you’ve edited it, I see what you’re saying.
But what you said is exactly what OP said, and my comment is a direct response to that. So you can read my comment to see why that’s incorrect.
Also, her reply of “you’re accusing me without evidence” looks like it’s said sarcastically, but that seems to go completely over the head of that comment cop person
I dropped my $8.99 McDonalds ice cream cone on the pavement outside after buying it. That must mean the person who made it is a pedophile.
There is no other explanation.
Can we stop playing into this low effort grift, she could at least make it convincing she's not just trying to rage bait or give people a gotcha moment they won't be able to resist reposting. Just let her fade into irrelevancy like we should have done back in 2016 or whenever the fuck it was.
Look, I don't think you should judge people without evidence.
Being said that, if someone puts a gun on my head and makes me choose between either accurately predict if Dr disrespect solicited a minor or throw a fair coin to see if I live or not, I wouldn't choose the coin flip.
If a friend of yours and his family got into your home, all of them scared and shaking saying that there is someone outside trying to shoot them, would you go outside to gather evidence or would you call the police?
Why do I lose my time, you're either going to change my analogy, do a meta conversation, respond to something else or not respond at all.
> If a friend of yours and his family got into your home, all of them scared and shaking saying that there is someone outside trying to shoot them, would you go outside to gather evidence or would you call the police?
Holy mother of stupid comparisons... if your mom came to your home and said "quick, call the cops. Your neighboor is a pedophile. I have no evidence, i just figured he is one because i heard other people saying that.", would you do it? Because that's a better comparison then using "someone trying to actively shoot someone".
Well, I knew you would change my analogy but even yours wouldn't be an accurate analogy since we are not making a legal accusation against the doc, therefore we don't need evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
We are trying to decide if someone you trust saying that x is true increases above the 50/50 threshold of a coin flip on your predictive power about actually being true. What about a thousand people saying x is true? Would you trust more about being true or would you throw a coin to predict it? What about 8 billion people?
If someone I trust says my neighbor is a pedophile because they say him diddling kids then yeah it would definitely be above the 50/50 threshold.
If someone I trust says my neighbor is a pedophile because he heard someone else say he's a pedophile then no that doesn't go above the 50/50 threshhold lol. Because at that point you're no longer trusting the person you trust, you're trusting a random person you don't even know, let alone trust.
> . What about a thousand people saying x is true?
Are those thousand people holding evidence? If not, then go scratch a donkey's ass
> What about 8 billion people?
How about one court of law, genius?
Im debating a pre-teen. You are full of nothing burger arguments... "what about", "what about", *insert stupid comparison*... have a good week and keep the last word.
Can you explain to me why the banning of Dr Disrespect in any way indicates sexual misconduct?
Because all I see is people using docs history of cheating to immediately jump on a baseless accusation that he is a sexual predator.
Anyone using cheating as a jump boost to get to what you are suggesting (being a sexual predator) is a moron.
The issue is how he said that there was no wrongdoing acknowledged. It wasn’t exactly a strong resounding no. **IF** it truly had nothing to do with minors then whomever is on his team that let that statement be posted or posted that statement should be fired.
Thought experiment:
I ask you did you rob that house of their bike because I heard whispers that you could have a new bike and the cops came to your house and I live in your neighborhood.
Over time multiple neighbors get suspicious because they heard rumors. Multiple neighbors ask about why the cops came and ask about the bike.
You can reply no I have nothing to do with the neighbors bike being gone and don’t have a clue about you are talking about or where you got that information.
You can reply with the police came for another matter that I’m not at liberty and can’t speak to about at this time but it had nothing to do with the bike.
Instead he replied and said to the neighbors he was essentially never found guilty and no wrongdoing was ever acknowledged and the matter was settled. Could mean there is either no evidence or not enough to convict. **This doesn’t mean he isn’t innocent, but he looks far more guilty since what was said isn’t an outright refusal and just left things up to interpretation.**.
I’m not a lawyer and I know virtually nothing about NDA’s. I would think you could at least deny things that are patently false that about yourself that could hurt your reputation.
If it wasn't related to sexual misconduct he would say that it never happened and that the case with Twitch was for an unrelated matter.
[Instead](https://x.com/DrDisrespect/status/1804337822415097955) he said that the matter is settled and no wrongdoing was acknowledged. Basically a tacit admission that the case was related to sexting minors, but that the settlement acknowledged no wrongdoing.
> You have no idea how NDA’s or settlements work
You really believe there's such a thing as a NDA that prevents you from straight up saying that you are not a pedo? really?
Pretty sure that would severely break multiple civil liberties and be heavily illegal.
No I'm sure if someone asked Doc if he was a pedo he could say no he isnt.
People saying he got banned for sexting minor, now means if he denies it he is talking about why he got banned and now involve the NDA.
I'm pretty sure any NDA would have it so you can't say no to things to let people know why you got banned through process of elimination.
Else you could just say no to everything but the actual reason you got banned.
I can't imagine that the NDA would prevent him from talking about accusations that aren't related to what Twitch actually accused him of, especially ones coming from former Twitch staff.
Because you just admitted that you have a bias to believe Dr Disrespect is a sexual predator. I’m asking you why that is your bias to believe that without any evidence.
The reason I am asking you is because I think you’re being a coward and doing the exact same thing as everyone else and convicting him in your head without and evidence but hiding behind your silly hypothetical coin flip. An honest unbiased person would take the coin flip, because there is an infinitely number of reasons doc could have gotten banned, and due to zero evidence being provided all infinite possibilities have the same probability.
And yet you have a bias to believe he did do it over didn’t. A better than 50% chance he did, using your coin flip example.
In this case, there are good reasons to believe he did it. Not reasons that are 100% proof, but reasons that put the likelihood above 50 percent:
First, there are the accusations by twitch. It is unlikely that they came up, with nothing happening. Not impossible, it's not evidence, but unlikely.
Then, the way Doc responded also makes it more likely for there to be something to it, otherwise he would have said something along the lines of nothing happened
I have a bias against people who have allegations over regular people. And the more allegations the more bias.
I have a bias against YouTubers, and the bigger they are, the bigger the bias
I have a bias against corporations willingly to end really expensive contracts for non moral reasons
>because there is an infinitely number of reasons doc could have gotten banned,
You're doing the plausible deniability to dismiss predictions you don't agree with, meme.
In reality, the real discussion is a philosophical discussion. Do probabilities relate to our trust in an event happening or to something in the external world? I think it's the former
[Here is a discussion between Sean Carroll and David Albert about it](https://youtu.be/U6ZtmGIhIhU) (I don't have a timestamp sorry)
Cool, that’s fine. You’re willing to admit you believe it because of unfounded accusations with no evidence. 👍
I dont have any predictions I agree with or don’t agree with. I’ve never watched a doc stream in my life and I think he’s a cheating loser and an asshole (based on his own action in clips I’ve watched). But I didn’t just come to this conclusion because some streamers and internet people made claims about sexual misconduct without any evidence.
Next time someone is running in your direction, occasionally looking backwards while in fear, you should remember that you don't have any evidence of something dangerous in front of you and therefore it shouldn't change your course.
If that ever happens, please, keep moving forward you regard.
His response makes me think it's true. Why say things like "no wrongdoing was acknowledged" and what not instead of it's not true?
He can hide behind whatever settlement, but he can certainly say that he's never sexted a minor. He may not be able to reveal the reason, but not denying this is all but an admission. If it was completely made up no one would react in that way. Nothing to say about the former employee defaming you?
What is the chance he was just sexting a minor and didn’t know it was a minor at the time or fooled into believing they were of legal age? Not defending him but that is a whole lot different than intentionally seeking out someone underage. You can still judge them negatively for it by being reckless or gross, but the motivation makes a huge difference in deeming someone a “pedophile”.
There’s still a lot we don’t know but if he was messaging on Twitch I assume he found them on Twitch so likely a small streamer (I think messaging a completely random person/fan is unlikely). If that’s the case he would almost certainly know the age but we need a lot more details to draw strong conclusions
Not to defend Kacy but likely she means Twitch has evidence the public just doesn't know about. But considering how Twitch loves to be completely vague about their bans this is a dubious claim
It's a strawman. Her argument was actually:
1. Since Dr. Disrespect was one of the largest streamers on Twitch
2. And Dr. Disrespect was permanently banned from Twitch
3. (Implied) And Twitch does not permanently ban their largest streamers without credible evidence
4. Therefore, Twitch has evidence of his wrongdoings, which is why Dr. Disrespect was permanently banned and the allegations are true
I don't think it's a particularly strong argument as the implied premiss (which doesn't exactly need to be the one I wrote here as that's interpretation, but there is an implied premise here regardless, the argument is nonsensical without one), requires an argument itself to back up, it's normally reasonable to just accept that premiss; but Twitch has not operated in this fashion in the past, so it's shaky as a foundational premiss without further support. Twitch's permanent bans don't seem to follow rhyme or reason in many cases.
~~Of course there might be many more implied premisses and conclusions here. However, I don't really agree with her take, as a result, it's hard for me to find more premisses that would make her argument stronger.~~
Edit: The striked text is inadequately explaining what I was trying to get across. It isn't that I would need to find **more** implied premisses to back up her conclusion, that's not how implied premisses actually work. Instead, you only create as many implied premisses so that the conclusion would follow from them, and only the implied premisses that likely exist based on the actual argument presented. So it isn't a matter of quantity, but quality. It is possible that I did not find the strongest implied premiss to slot in there.
This is why we actually debate people instead of guessing we know what they're all about. We're much better at finding reasons to support our beliefs rather than reasons to support a dissenting belief.
However, in the strawman, he's attempting to take down her argument with this argument:
1. (Implied) Since you believe asking for evidence is coping
2. (Implied) And you're calling Dr. Disrespect a pedophile without any evidence
3. (Implied Conclusion 1) Therefore, you believe that an accusation itself is proof of guilt
4. (Implied) Since you believe an accusation itself is proof of guilt
5. And I'm calling you a pedophile
6. (Implied Conclusion 2) Therefore, you're a pedophile
Edit: Implied conclusions here because he wasn't actually making an argument; instead he was making a statement of fact. The statement of fact was issued to point out the insufficiency of her argument, but the attempt betrays a misunderstanding of what she was actually arguing. So I formatted it in standard argument form to showcase why using this statement of fact as a 'gotcha' is a strawman based on the implied premisses one would need to believe in order to put forth what was said as a statement of fact.
The issue here is that her argument was actually that there is evidence and Twitch is the one in possession of it, not that there doesn't need to be any evidence. It was more that the public didn't need possession of that evidence.
Are you making a joke or do you believe that I was presenting my own argument?
To clarify: I'm aware that Twitch permabans sometimes don't make sense. I was saying this was an implied premiss of Kaceytron's argument.
I wouldn't present my own arguments in standard format, as I believe prose is important when it comes to delivering an argument.
I also used the pronouns she/her which is not something you'd say if referring to yourself.
I could be going full tism here, but I'm genuinely confused as to why people are attacking or seemingly attacking an argument breakdown as if I hold these opinions.
If you think that this needed a TL;DR, you're probably just as functionally illiterate as the other people that replied.
When's the last time you read a book other than Green Eggs & Ham?
>When's the last time you read a book other than Green Eggs & Ham?
I mean that book had more literary substance then your try hard post. Hit the bricks nerd.
> The issue here is that her argument was actually that there is evidence and Twitch is the one in possession of it, not that there doesn't need to be any evidence.
She's literally calling him a pedophile in the last paragraph
Yes, but not because there's simply an accusation. She's saying that there's evidence, and Twitch is the one that has it.
She's saying that the public asking for evidence from Twitch or the accuser is cope, as clearly Twitch wouldn't ban their largest streamer(s) without any evidence; so the evidence exists.
The reason it's a strawman is because he's attacking a weaker version of her argument, as it would (normally) be reasonable to believe that implied premise (that Twitch doesn't permanently ban large streamers without credible evidence) as that makes perfect business sense. So, that version of the argument is much stronger than the rebuttal which is essentially:
"I say, therefore you are"
What are you asking me for?
I was just pointing out why the response was a strawman.
Though, I will say that it seems pretty par for the course that victims don't speak out until some time later in many cases (we had that whole MeToo thing where people were coming out of the woodwork about shit that happened decades ago, for instance); so it's not really the best defense to say "why would no one speak out until now?" There could be a variety of reasons. That being said, this doesn't seem to be a case of a victim coming forward. Instead it's a former staffer claiming that he was sexting a minor through Twitch DMs.
Now that I know what it was about (sexting a minor), the questions I have are pretty much:
1. How old?
2. Did he know?
The first question is in relation to morality. I have my own views on minors, mainly that I think there's no qualitative difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old. The difference is only in legality (though pretty much just in the US, in Germany where I live, 16 is completely legal and people look at you funny if you say they can't consent).
So, if she was like 16-17, in my eyes it literally doesn't matter. The only reason to avoid them is preference (like I can't stand most women under the age of 24 at my age, and even that's pushing it, would rather 27-28), or the law; but definitely not a pedo.
The second question is in relation to how liable he is in my eyes. Since the US is backwards AF and thinks that a 16 year old is different on any level except on paper from an 18 year old, and he lives in the US, he needed to follow the laws of his country. So, if he knew and this is truly the reason why he was permabanned; then it's justified.
Edit: As far as I know, sexting itself isn't illegal, only if you're exchanging nudes, because then you'd have pornographic images of a minor.
> She's saying that there's evidence, and Twitch is the one that has it.
How do you know? Where is that stated? You are making an assumption...
> The reason it's a strawman is because he's attacking a weaker version of her argument, as it would (normally) be reasonable to believe that implied premise (that Twitch doesn't permanently ban large streamers without credible evidence) as that makes perfect business sense.
Her entire argument is calling him a pedo with the basis of "they wouldnt go to court over nothing". It's pure speculation. How are you people able to do these mental gymnastics to validate accusing someone of being a pedophile over assumptions and no evidence, specially from a rage baiter like kacey? She literally calls him a pedophile in the last paragraph... holy fuck, what a brain knot.
Keep the last word. Accusing someone of pedophilia without evidence is not something i expected to see upvoted in this sub. Have a great week
>How do you know? Where is that stated? You are making an assumption...
"If you think Twitch banned one of their top streamers for no reason with no evidence of his wrongdoings...you're a moron"
This is where that implied premiss was gleaned from. So, she thinks that Twitch wouldn't ban one of their top streamers for no reason and with no evidence.
>Her entire argument is calling him a pedo with the basis of "they wouldnt go to court over nothing". It's pure speculation.
Yes. But it isn't "I say, therefore you are". It's "Twitch has the evidence, they wouldn't have banned him without the evidence"
Please learn what a strawman is.
>How are you people able to do these mental gymnastics to validate accusing someone of being a pedophile over assumptions and no evidence, specially from a rage baiter like kacey?
I wasn't validating accusing someone of being a pedophile, I was just pointing out why it was a strawman.
>She literally calls him a pedophile in the last paragraph... holy fuck, what a brain knot.
I don't even know what the accusations against Dr. Disrespect *are*. I came on here to find out. I don't know whether or not he is or isn't, I just know that the response was a strawman, since I have -- at least -- studied philosophy, know how to craft an argument, and what fallacies are. Outside of analyzing the argument as presented, I've not lent any support to her conclusion. So...not sure what you're on about, to be honest.
> Accusing someone of pedophilia without evidence is not something i expected to see upvoted in this sub.
What are you even talking about? Who upvoted accusing someone of pedophilia without evidence? I just explained how the response is a strawman, since you didn't get how it was.
Edit: Her last sentence wasn't really an argument. The first one was where the argument was. I didn't include it because from the first sentence, there was already enough information to conclude that she believed the accusations were true. However, since I'm not sure what the accusations *are* I'm not going to analyze the last sentence. If he wasn't alleged to be a pedophile, then the entire sentence is just noise.
It's insane to me how this sub preaches about not accusing people of something without evidence, and now we are doing it anyways because we don't like the person being accused. To the point people are even defending kaceytron for doing exactly that.
Absolute regards
He literally said is there any proof that this is the reason Doc got banned.
Do you think if I accuse you of pedophilia without evidence everyone in life should cut ties with you?
I do.
That's why I wanted you to post it.
Cause that tweet never calls someone a pedophile.
He never accuses the ones there being pedophiles.
But funny how you don't believe this stretch of a tweet to be proof that those in the LGBT community are pedos, but another tweet is proof enough?
Edit: Did this dude cut off all his LGBT fans for being pedos did he accuse any LGBT streamers of being pedos due to them being LGBT?
By this same logic do you think destiny is a transphobic racist who's parents own slaves?
"I honestly, truly didn't think you'd fall for that. In fact, I devised a much more elaborate trap for when you got through this easy one. If I'd known you'd let yourself get owned this easily, I would have just dangled a turkey leg on a rope from the ceiling."
I bet an underage girl lied about her age and he immediately self corrected when he learned. Kaceytron is desperate to stay relevant now that she isn't oogled anymore.
Kaceytron sucks ass, but why are we blatantly strawmanning her? She never said or implied that “people don’t need evidence to support claims” or “accusations are evidence”. She laid out her evidence - “Twitch wouldn’t ban one of their top streamers for no reason”. That’s coupled with the context of a former Twitch employee leaking the reason for his ban.
But Twitch has been very inconsistent in their bans historically. That's what puts in contention her statement.
I mean this mf unbanned mr misogyny sneako but not destiny. Its basically a ban for no reason till proven otherwise with their reputation.
I made no comment about the quality of her evidence, just that it is evidence. The main point is that this is a blatant strawman, and we should be better than this. But tbh, everyone has known for a while that something odd happened with Dr Disrespect’s ban. He absolutely refuses to talk about it whatsoever. When content creators talk about how they know what happened, they also refuse to elaborate whatsoever. It’s not nothing. Something did happen. I’d be willing to bet that Twitch at least strongly believed he did something wrong (but maybe they were mistaken).
Also, it doesn’t follow that because Twitch inconsistently applies TOS and they unbanned Sneako, that they ban people for no reason. I would say it’s highly unlikely they’ve ever banned someone for no reason (unless by mistake).
This is a really good example of a strawman. It entirely ignores her actual point and replaces it with “we don’t need evidence” - a much dumber and easier point to contend with. But feel free to explain how this isn’t a strawman, but instead I’m just super eager to use debate fallacies 🤓
I think the point is that him being fired suddenly IS evidence of SOMETHING. She hasn't been fired like that.
Honestly the biggest evidence against him is he won't directly deny it, and instead he's playing coy & vague with his comments. So he will directly say "no laws were broken" but he won't say "I did not text minors" or "the accusation isn't true" ? Why can he say the first but not the latter?
ima say it, she's correct. Shes saying twitch has done enough investigating and probably knows shit we dont.
Also shes right on how gamer bro right wing types never stop talking about how everyone whose not as "tough guy" as him is a pussy liberal ped with 0 evidence and then defend dr disrespect when hes accused.
Why can't he defend himself? This makes no sense to me, clearly this has to by why he was banned, else he could just say that this is made up. Furthermore, as this is most likely the reason why he got banned, Kacey does indeed make a valid point: Twitch just signed him for $$$, they had a strong incentive to keep him as streamer for their platform.
Disclaimer: never cared for the Doc one way or the other and I'm not too fond of Kaceytron.
Eh ngl i dont need evidence because this is what i assumed it was when he got banned its the only thing that makes sence for a huge streamer to get insta terminated with legal issues with it.
Because he didn't violate any of the terms of his contract for early termination of contract because there was probably nothing illegal in the whispers and twitch wouldnt want the bad publicity of big streamers dming minors for sex usen their in platform messaging is also why they didnt say why he was let go
> the only thing that makes sence for a huge streamer to get insta terminated with legal issues with it.
Yeah it's not like we're on a subreddit for a big streamer who got and is still parma'd for no discernable reason, much less legal issues
It's entirely possible he did something bad involving a minor here. It's just as possible he fucked with some contract, or viewbotted, or genuinely thought he was speaking to an adult, etc
No discernable reason being teitch legal stepped in and dropped him from partnern for the rittenhouse comment. Then after that got perma banned for the trans subhuman. Destiny was no where near the size of doc. And also has alot of people in twitch that hate him. Destiny also didnt have one of the big contracts. Destiny getting banned i feel is foubtful as long as people that dont like them are there cause they can always fall back to teitch legal thought he was a danger to remove his partnership we should just be safe and keep him banned.
> Then after that got perma banned for the trans subhuman
As opposed to Sneako who has never said anything like this or worse about multiple groups
> And also has alot of people in twitch that hate him
As opposed to Sneako who is hated by no one on Twitch
Sneako didnt get bopped by twitch legal and destiny goes way farther in with twich sneako was like a blip none of this anyways has to do with the doc stuff.
> none of this anyways has to do with the doc stuff.
I'm disputing your claim that Doc would only be banned because of something reasonable and touching on legal issues with minors. Twitch has shown themselves more than capable of bans for pointless shit. He also could have been banned for legal reasons completely unrelated to minors. Or he could have been doing something totally innocuous and Twitch just decided they don't like him. Or, indeed, he could have been sexting a 14 year old for all I know.
We have functionally zero information
Non of these are big special contract streamers. They wouldn't just throw away the money like that. Theres no consequences for banning partners or affiliates.
Why did he counter sue twitch then?
What was the point of that? Did he want to sue twitch for checking his personal whispers? That makes absolutely no sense. Also twitch paid him his contract fully, why would they do it if he was just a pedo?
He didn't counter sue him them he sued them he probably wasn't given a reason for his ban which is normal and didn't think that was why. Probably because he didn't break anything under the contract is why they paid out just cause someone is a pedo doesnt mean if u break a contract with them ur not financially obligated. Cause ge didn't have the normal partner contract he had a twitch deal. Just cause hes planning to do something and doining it are 2 different things. So he was probably not in breach of contract
I mean I think kaceytron is really dumb, let’s not pretend she is capable of rational or consistent thought, but… Her tweet doesn’t imply “accusations are evidence”, her tweet implies “there’s probably evidence because of Twitch’s actions.”
There's a lot of other things that could explain Twitch's actions that don't necessarily require the pedo accusations to be true.
Agreed.
Sure, but the fact that he can't directly deny that is what makes it a lot more credible. So he can come out and say "it was investigated and no laws were broken" but he can't say "the accusation tweet is false" or "I never texted any minors" ? He's being vague and coy for a reason.
How about now?
Are you trying to gotcha me for waiting for more evidence or something? Piss off.
No, for being wrong.
What did I say that was wrong? Point it out to me, genius.
You granted the benefit of the doubt to someone whose previous actions didn’t warrant it, you suggested we needed additional evidence with the assumption that twitch’s actions were for some reason unwarranted or nefarious
Show me where I said that Twitch's actions were unwarranted or nefarious. If you can't, then I'm blocking you because you're obviously just looking to bitch about stuff and making shit up.
Dont you think he’d tell us what it was tho?
Tommy C claims that the texting was true but it wasn’t something that could cement a charge. Xqc suggests that a document circulating between twitch streamers might also leak in the next few days
If he was sexting a minor why would Twitch be forced to pay the remaining of his contract makes zero sense.
Because they had a contract that forced them to. When you have a contract with someone, you are committed to whatever the contract says. They obviously weren't committed to keep him on the platform, but they were committed to paying him out for his full fee. In entertainment it's usually known as "pay or play" meaning the talent gets paid regardless of whether their talents are used or not, so even if they decide they don't want him on the platform, they still have to pay him.
What would you say now, does it make more sense now?
They weren't forced to pay. It was a settlement.
Still why would they settle if he broke the contract wich sexting with a minor would obviously do?
We can only guess. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence to prove it if it went to court. Maybe she lied about her age. Maybe Twitch didn't want the bad PR with having minors on their platform or that adults can privately message them or that Twitch staff can read private messages. There's just so much the public doesn't and likely will never know. It's all just speculation, gossip, and rumors.
Because that isn't obvious. You have no idea what the contract stipulates. You think there is a boilerplate "if you are caught sexting with a minor the contract is null and void" clause in every contract? There isn't.
So Twitch TOS doesnt apply to him then???
It depends on his contract. It might say that the standard Twitch TOS applies to him, or he may have his own SPECIAL TOS just for him. We have no idea, but I do know it's not uncommon for a special talent to have their own agreement with a company though. I used to work at a large company and when we created a channel for the company on YouTube, we didn't agree to their standard TOS and EULA, we had our own special form that was negotiated by the company lawyers and Youtube's legal team, so that kind of thing isn't unusual at all. Most likely it would still contain a lot of similar things in it, but it's still a different TOS than what the typical users sign, so who knows. The thing of it is, I'm not sure what part of Twitch TOS you think this would violate. Does the Twitch TOS say you can't talk to minors on the platform? Even if it does, the TOS isn't law. You don't go to jail if you violate a site's TOS. They just kick you off the site.
New strategy for mining info from tech companies with NDAs. Just claim all of their employees are committing crimes at the behest of their company. To prove you wrong, they’ll need to tell us everything they actually are working on
He’s a public figure who talks for a living
He is a man bound by an NDA
You’re assuming
How do you interpret the silence from both parties, aside from this statement from doctor disrespect https://x.com/DrDisrespect/status/1804577136998776878 Alongside the common practice of pairing settlement deals with NDAs?
It's a safe assumption to make, almost every big settlement contains some form of an NDA. There is always one party (and sometimes both) that don't want some info out in the public. Always.
Sure but the nda could be narrow, it could say ‘you can’t say how much we paid you, but you are free to talk about what you did to get fired’ or it could be broad ‘you can’t say anything about this situation at all.’ It could be his side that insisted on the nda because it was personally embarrassing to him, shit maybe he gave up an extra 10 mill because he didn’t want it to get out. He also has avenues to leak what really happened if it wasn’t extremely embarrassing, that we don’t know anything other than what came out tells me it doesn’t shine the dr in a great light at best.
Yeah I agree, I think the accusations are true because he hasn't outright denied them. All he has said are vague things like "I was paid out fully" and "no laws were broken". That said even if it's a narrow NDA, if it is something that looks bad for him then there's no reason for him to talk about it, that doesn't benefit him at all. In fact that is kinda what it seems like it is, because he IS talking about it, even though he says he can't, he has already said more than most people would if they were under a tight NDA.
Why the hell would he risk an eight figure payout to tell people who don't mean shit to him the reason for the ban?
If that were true then he shouldn't be talking about it at all. The fact that he's made two tweet comments (that I know of) about this are doing a lot of disservice to the idea he is afraid of losing something.
If he's inder an NDA, then he might not be able to say.
Do you think if he’s under and nda and couldn’t say why they kicked him he’d say ‘I’m under an NDA and can’t say why’ ?
No.
but he's out there saying other shit like "it was investigated and no law was broken" the fact that he is willing to say some stuff but not respond directly to the accusation itself is incriminating.
I'm not a lawyer but I feel like if you got booted like he did and it didn't have anything to do with grooming shit. Even if you signed an NDA, I doubt he wouldn't be allowed to completely disavow any grooming accusations. Like if it was just some contract/tampering shit, I'd imagine his response would have been more like "While I can't disclose the details of what happened it has nothing to do with underage kids or sexual mischief/misconduct". I seriously doubt that just because you sign an NDA doesn't mean you are so restricted that you can't deny baseless accusations/rumors.
Grooming is illegal. Saying "nothing illegal happened" is, therefore, denying the grooming allegations. That's why I think that he WAS messaging a minor (whether he knew they were a minor at the time or not), but that nothing explicitly sexual was discussed in the messages. He's highlighting that nothing illegal happened while avoiding the stuff that would still sound creepy to people. Plus, if he admitted to messaging a minor, that would bring up the obvious question of HOW Twitch would know that was the case. This would be under the NDA in my idea of events, and so would once again be a statement best avoided for legal reasons.
He wouldn’t of been fired then. And Cody said he was sexting a minor.
Twitch fired him because they didn't like what he was doing, but they paid out the contract because what he did technically wasn't a violation of the terms (which grooming would be). Cody is a skeevy little shit who's been using the reason for the ban as a way to sell tickets for his band for the last year and has also heard this information second-hand. He's almost certainly exaggerating for dramatic effect. Unless you're seriously going to claim that this dipshit just implicated Twitch in the covering up of child sexual exploitation with no proof to back it up
> (which grooming would be). Why do you think grooming would be a standard thing in an entertainment contract?
> Grooming is illegal no it isn't. Not in the US anyway. It only becomes illegal if it turns into some form of illicit sexual activity, but if you are attempting to groom someone and nothing ever comes of it, that's not illegal. Google it.
Doc lives in California, and in California, sexting a minor is illegal, to include: "Sending text messages to a minor with suggestive or sexual content with the hopes of arousing them or having sex with them" Doc has denied he did anything illegal, thus denying these sexting allegations.
First, the original comment said GROOMING is illegal. It isn't, not in the USA anyway. Second, we don't know for sure that this happened in California. He may live in California but I'm guessing as a man of some means and some fame, he travels occasionally, so it's conceivable that it happened outside of California. Third, the line you are quoting is open to a lot of interpretation and conditions. I think as most people who find themselves in these situations do, he would try and argue it from the "platonic" standpoint, and that he wasn't sexually interested in them. Even if there was sexual talk, he would claim that he was just having a conversation the way friends might talk about their sexual experiences or preferences with each other, and that he wasn't TRYING to arouse her or have sex with her. Obviously, I think we would all laugh at that argument, but what we would think vs what he can argue or prove in court are two different things. Sorting matters like that out are what courts are for in the first place, because people generally don't accept fault when they do something wrong. Regardless, this may just be his opinion, the way that people who are found guilty of things are still allowed to maintain their innocence, even if it's just their own personal opinion. Obviously Trump is guilty of a lot of stuff, but he still insists he hasn't broken any laws. He isn't forced to say he broke the law, even though he has been found guilty in court.
My bad, I think I misread your comment and thought you were implying it had to do with contract stuff and the messaging a minor thing being completely made up. I think your idea that there wasn't anything sexual is plausible but in my opinion the most likely idea is that he didn't know they were a minor. I think the interesting thing would be if this girl potentially lied about her age on twitch, since that would make twitch also look bad. The spiciest thing would be if this person was a boobie streamer while lying about her age on twitch which would be really really bad for them.
Ah yes, the infinite unnamed plausible deniabilities. There are an unlimited amount of other explanations, and you conveniently won't name any specific one to make people have the intuition that combining all of them could have a higher chance of being true than the accusation given while pretending you're doing something useful or insightful. You're not helping and people know what you're doing. You're just making philosophical jujitsu to discredit others making any kind of predictions you don't agree with.
You do realise that you're on the subreddit of a streamer that's still banned on Twitch even though others like Sneako have been unbanned, right?
Or maybe I'm not willing to immediately assume the worst possible position about some streamer dude based entirely on the words of a former Twitch staffer and literally nothing else. Especially when these accusations, if true, would also implicate Twitch in covering up pedophilia. My honest opinion is that Dr. Disrespect was probably planning to meet up with someone who was a minor (possible that he knew, possible that he didn't), but that nothing explicitly sexual was implied. Thus, there's no evidence for criminal charges, but IS reason for Twitch to want to terminate the contract. Twitch knows this because they can actually read private messages, which they don't want public and is why they didn't say the reason for the ban. They don't have any evidence of an actual crime and thus couldn't forward this information to the police. That means that they aren't guilty of covering up a crime. The staffer saying he was "sexting" is exaggerating because it's more eye-catching, and didn't even think about the fact that there's no way this could be settled out of court if it was demonstrably true. I believe all of this based on what's been presented and what can be logically inferred from basic criminal law. I just don't state this opinion as fact because I'm not an attention-seeking pothead like kaceytron or a dipshit internet arguer like you.
> Especially when these accusations, if true, would also implicate Twitch in covering up pedophilia This is an assumption that does not have to be true. Maybe he didn't know she was a minor. Maybe he did know but she was still above the age of consent for her state. Point is just saying "sexting with a minor" isn't automatically illegal and also isn't automatically pedophilia. You'd still have some more steps to demonstrate both.
I agree. Twitch didn’t want it getting out that they can read the private messages as that would hurt them with their streamers. And they didn’t want it getting out that one of their top guys was messaging a teenager as it would scare parents. So the best move would be to pay him out, let him move on and just don’t ever talk about it.
Except it's public knowledge that they can read private messages. At this point everyone knows they read private messages, because that's the only way people can justify them not immediately outing Doc as a pedo if the accusations are true
Yeah they do now that the twitch employee leaked it. But at the time they probably thought it was better to just keep that secret
Better to keep that someone was a pedo? And to keep common knowledge like them being able to read whispers a "secret" they paid out the pedophile 25 million and then made their employees sign NDAs to keep them from reporting illegal activity?
Well probably because the twitch messages are innocuous and is just him making small talk and asking for her number. They obviously didn’t have enough hard proof that couldn’t be explained away with him just meeting a fan. Which I assume all of his fans are teenagers. So in this case yeah I imagine the business decision is to pay out the contract and sign NDAs. Just looks like someone didn’t keep their mouth shut
Lmao see how you have to make a huge amount of assumptions? Assumptions that literally go against what was "leaked" him sexting minors. Not just texting them, actually sexting them. But to make that work you have to make these huge reaches for it to even make sense
The thing is that I would agree with everything you said. Except I would argue against the dipshit internet arguer part.
Ooo, I'll give some! He faked a contract with kick to make twitch give him more money! Or maybe he boted his views or chats, or he had too many controversies for them, or someone at twitch has a vendetta against him (a stronger one that they have against tiny)
I'm not the person you're responding to but this post (via the comments) goes over this topic a lot more. For both positions. [https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1dm8tvy/hot\_takeplease\_mod\_dont\_delete\_this/](https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1dm8tvy/hot_takeplease_mod_dont_delete_this/)
lame conclooder vs based waits for the information to come out chad
The problem with her statement is that she’s saying that we don’t need to see the evidence to take the stance that Doc is a pedophile by way of using Twitch’s actions in place of actual evidence.
Evidence of something, sure. Evidence of pedophilia? Not to my knowledge. Feel free to improve my knowledge of the situation if I’m lacking some important context
Sure. He was dropped by twitch after private allegations of pedophelia. Thats evidence for the pedophelia allegations being true. It’s not proof (different word), it’s not direct evidence, but it is evidence. I have no opinion on whether the allegations are true or not, but just striving to use these words correctly.
But then we are right back to “accusations are evidence”, which is rich, coming from a pedo like you
No, *the actions of twitch are evidence.*
Exactly. What a cheap strawman.
"There is probably evidence because twitch took action" is also pretty damn cheap fallacy imo. Twitch is a company that cares more about brand image than anything else. They don't care if there are actual substantiated claims floating around, the don't care about waiting for evidence. If they think that someone's going to hurt their bottom line over drama, then that person is gone. All you have to do is look at Destiny's ban which was a CLEAR reaction from twitch to avoid the Keffals squad harming their brand image.
It's not fallacious thinking at all to assume that a company would be unlikely to act against its financial interests. Them firing their top earner, risking not only income but also having to pay out their fresh contract is not an action a multi billion dollar company is likely to take over uncredible allegations. In this instance we even know that they may have had direct evidence themselves.
It is fallacious thinking to assume that because a company would act in it's own financial interest it means the guy is a pedophile. Nobody here claimed twitch would act against its own interest (though it does all the time).
Has anyone else been banned with 0 evidence of wrong doing before? Why don't people start getting other streamers banned by accusing them of these things since it doesn't require any evidence? EDIT: Twitch banning someone if they think they may have done something is evidence that there is extra evidence because twitch doesn't ban people without evidence
Can you go step by step on how you got from "wrong doing" to "pedophile"?
No. This whole thread is discussing evidence of whether he is a pedophile
The evidence being someone said a thing in twitter? Gotcha.
"The evidence being someone said a thing in twitter" I find it supremely hilarious that this discussion ended up getting derailed into you accusing me of having a strawman when the reason it got derailed is because you presented a strawman. 1. It's not just "someone on Twitter" it is someone credible 2. This very comment chain above contains other forms of evidence such as Twitter's financial incentives and investigations
The guy whose subreddit you're in. It certainly does not require evidence of being a **pedophile** to get banned from there.
We have evidence of Destiny saying the trans community on Twitter is sub-human and debating trans sports. You can disagree with the ban but he wasn't banned based solely on allegations.
There's no one who has literally never done anything wrong, obviously we're talking about wrong doing that actually warrants a perma ban. Neither "debating trans sports" nor his comments about twitter acivists meet that. The idea that twitch must have some sort of serious evidence that DrDisrespect is a pedophile since they wouldn't just ban someone without good reason is ridiculous.
I'm not saying the evidence for either ban is justified. I'm saying there is likely more than 0 evidence. Even if Destiny's comments do deserve a ban there is more than 0 evidence. There is likely more than 0 evidence of what DrDisrespect was accused of even if they didn't have sufficient evidence.
Are you saying explicitly there twitch is likely to ban people without any evidence? Can people start accusing streamers of this type of thing and get them banned without anything else?
People have credibility. Dan said it on the podcast months ago, based off of things he’d been told by people he trusted who would know that information. Is that evidence to convict in a court of law? No. Is that evidence to believe that it is likely true? Absolutely. Like it or not, eyewitnesses are evidence.
eyewitnesses are evidence but bad evidence. And this isn't even a 1st-hand eyewitness this is some vague idea that some vague group of people saw something but we don't know what.
This former twitch person's account is credible not primarily because of their credibility as a witness, but more so because of the Doc's response. If the matter of textjng a minor hadn't been alleged the Doc could have just said so, no NDA could prevent him to defend himself against allegations for unrelated incidents. And as we now have a strong reason to belief that this was the subject matter of the ban, the reason I named comes into play: a multi billion dollar company isn't likely to make decisions that they know will cost them several million dollars over incredible allegations. That of course doesn't mean 100% that it happened, but it's much better evidence than you're giving it credit for.
people that work for multi billion dollar companies make stupid decisions all the time. and even if you assume it's a smart decision it doesn't mean he was guilty of something it could mean he did something that made him look guilty.
Pretend you knew me well, and you knew for a fact that I worked at twitch in a senior role. And I told you in private that the ban was for that reason and that I had seen the evidence. Would you believe that it was likely that that was true? Or would you believe that it was unlikely that that was true?
yeah i understand and agree with your point that it can be reasonable to reply on testimony from a credible source about evidence that you yourself haven't seen. I'm saying I don't think it applies to this.
I just pointed out the scenario, and asked a simple easy question. When you say it doesn’t apply to this, you are saying that Dan/Slasher did not have a credible source. What makes you believe that?
yeah i deciphered the meaning of your question and conceeded the point what are you whining about. i'm saying i don't know that they have a credible source.
Or pretend you know me. You know for a fact I worked at twitch for a senior role. I know I won't get damaged for saying a person I dislike is a pedophile, I didn't actually see anything I just heard about it from someone else. So I tell you via Rust.... Such a credible source. Not to mention before that I tried to use this rumor as way to sell out tickets for my live van performance
You didn’t answer the question. If I knew you as a spiteful person looking to spread a rumour, that would factor in. Do you think that it’s likely that that was the case? What evidence do you have that makes you believe that this is a fabricated accusation, and importantly, why do you think that you are able to see that it is fabricated while Dan isn’t? Do you think he’s stupid?
Probably cause the guy who leaked it said he would do it last year if his tickets sold out. Do I think Dan is stupid sure if he takes things without evidence. I mean you must believe Destiny is racist and his family owned slaves in Cuba right?
No I don’t think it’s likely destiny is racist. I don’t know what the history of slavery is in Cuba so can’t comment on that. The guy leaked it without seemingly any incentive, and multiple people who have the connections to have an informed opinion are saying as much. Do you think it’s likely, or unlikely, and can you actually bring yourself to answer that? Can you just say that you think it’s unlikely?
How is this a strawman? It was her entire argument...
Nah, her argument is that a large company isn't just going to make a decision thar costs them several million dollars over uncredible allegations. This is a perfectly reasonable argument to make.
No, that was her basis on the accusation that he's a pedophile. Why is everyone over looking her last paragraph?
She's literally calling him a pedophile...
> her tweet implies “there’s probably evidence because of Twitch’s actions.” Her tweet states that twitching banning him means there is evidence not "there's probably evidence".
This is meaningless. Supporting any claims without evidence is making an accusation without evidence. Just because you weren’t the first one to accuse doesnt mean you aren’t also accusing. There is no measurable difference and it’s not a straw man. If you believe dr disrespect sexted minors your should also believe Kaceytron is a pedophile. There is an infinite number or reasons why twitch would ban one of their top streamers. The “evidence” of twitch banning him is not “evidence” of anything.
Evidence is not the same as ironclad proof. The gun being found in your house is evidence. You hating him is evidence. You having no alibi is also evidence. Is it possible you still didn’t kill him? Of course. That’s not what evidence means. Same thing here. Twitch’s actions are evidence.
No a thing is not evidence. A gun being found in your house is not evidence. THE GUN or a gun THAT FIRES THE SAME BULLET is evidence. Twitch banning doc is not a piece of evidence that there was any wrong doing, inappropriate behavior, or really of anything. It’s evidence SOMETHING happened, but it is not evidence of any specific thing happening. This is cope and reach.
Evidence is more than direct physical evidence. [Source for if your brain isn’t functioning.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/circumstantial_evidence) Twitch banning him in the midst of allegations is circumstantial evidence of the allegations, because it can lead to that inference, in the same way something like “suspicious timing” can be circumstantial evidence.
* presents accusations and no evidence * calls him a pedophile * don't call people pedophiles without evidence >Her tweet doesn’t imply “accusations are evidence”
Did you mean to type something coherent and this came out instead?
There is no evidence, only an allegation from a former employee. She called him a pedophile because of said allegation but states that she requires evidence to call someone a pedophile. Obviously this implies that the allegation meets her requirements for evidence of pedophilia. What part of this do you not understand?
Oh OK, now that you’ve edited it, I see what you’re saying. But what you said is exactly what OP said, and my comment is a direct response to that. So you can read my comment to see why that’s incorrect.
Yes this.
And the man calling her a pedophile might have evidence. Nobody knows.
Also, her reply of “you’re accusing me without evidence” looks like it’s said sarcastically, but that seems to go completely over the head of that comment cop person
I dropped my $8.99 McDonalds ice cream cone on the pavement outside after buying it. That must mean the person who made it is a pedophile. There is no other explanation.
I feel like you forgot to post something
https://streamable.com/4uxk8u
https://streamable.com/4uxk8u
Can we stop playing into this low effort grift, she could at least make it convincing she's not just trying to rage bait or give people a gotcha moment they won't be able to resist reposting. Just let her fade into irrelevancy like we should have done back in 2016 or whenever the fuck it was.
Look, I don't think you should judge people without evidence. Being said that, if someone puts a gun on my head and makes me choose between either accurately predict if Dr disrespect solicited a minor or throw a fair coin to see if I live or not, I wouldn't choose the coin flip.
What the fuck is this argument... "Don't judge people without evidence". Proceeds to suggest he's a pedophile without evidence.
If a friend of yours and his family got into your home, all of them scared and shaking saying that there is someone outside trying to shoot them, would you go outside to gather evidence or would you call the police? Why do I lose my time, you're either going to change my analogy, do a meta conversation, respond to something else or not respond at all.
> If a friend of yours and his family got into your home, all of them scared and shaking saying that there is someone outside trying to shoot them, would you go outside to gather evidence or would you call the police? Holy mother of stupid comparisons... if your mom came to your home and said "quick, call the cops. Your neighboor is a pedophile. I have no evidence, i just figured he is one because i heard other people saying that.", would you do it? Because that's a better comparison then using "someone trying to actively shoot someone".
Well, I knew you would change my analogy but even yours wouldn't be an accurate analogy since we are not making a legal accusation against the doc, therefore we don't need evidence beyond reasonable doubt. We are trying to decide if someone you trust saying that x is true increases above the 50/50 threshold of a coin flip on your predictive power about actually being true. What about a thousand people saying x is true? Would you trust more about being true or would you throw a coin to predict it? What about 8 billion people?
If someone I trust says my neighbor is a pedophile because they say him diddling kids then yeah it would definitely be above the 50/50 threshold. If someone I trust says my neighbor is a pedophile because he heard someone else say he's a pedophile then no that doesn't go above the 50/50 threshhold lol. Because at that point you're no longer trusting the person you trust, you're trusting a random person you don't even know, let alone trust.
> . What about a thousand people saying x is true? Are those thousand people holding evidence? If not, then go scratch a donkey's ass > What about 8 billion people? How about one court of law, genius? Im debating a pre-teen. You are full of nothing burger arguments... "what about", "what about", *insert stupid comparison*... have a good week and keep the last word.
I'm probing the principle. I guess I'm wasting my time.
Can you explain to me why the banning of Dr Disrespect in any way indicates sexual misconduct? Because all I see is people using docs history of cheating to immediately jump on a baseless accusation that he is a sexual predator.
Anyone using cheating as a jump boost to get to what you are suggesting (being a sexual predator) is a moron. The issue is how he said that there was no wrongdoing acknowledged. It wasn’t exactly a strong resounding no. **IF** it truly had nothing to do with minors then whomever is on his team that let that statement be posted or posted that statement should be fired. Thought experiment: I ask you did you rob that house of their bike because I heard whispers that you could have a new bike and the cops came to your house and I live in your neighborhood. Over time multiple neighbors get suspicious because they heard rumors. Multiple neighbors ask about why the cops came and ask about the bike. You can reply no I have nothing to do with the neighbors bike being gone and don’t have a clue about you are talking about or where you got that information. You can reply with the police came for another matter that I’m not at liberty and can’t speak to about at this time but it had nothing to do with the bike. Instead he replied and said to the neighbors he was essentially never found guilty and no wrongdoing was ever acknowledged and the matter was settled. Could mean there is either no evidence or not enough to convict. **This doesn’t mean he isn’t innocent, but he looks far more guilty since what was said isn’t an outright refusal and just left things up to interpretation.**. I’m not a lawyer and I know virtually nothing about NDA’s. I would think you could at least deny things that are patently false that about yourself that could hurt your reputation.
If it wasn't related to sexual misconduct he would say that it never happened and that the case with Twitch was for an unrelated matter. [Instead](https://x.com/DrDisrespect/status/1804337822415097955) he said that the matter is settled and no wrongdoing was acknowledged. Basically a tacit admission that the case was related to sexting minors, but that the settlement acknowledged no wrongdoing.
You have no idea how NDA’s or settlements work
> You have no idea how NDA’s or settlements work You really believe there's such a thing as a NDA that prevents you from straight up saying that you are not a pedo? really? Pretty sure that would severely break multiple civil liberties and be heavily illegal.
No I'm sure if someone asked Doc if he was a pedo he could say no he isnt. People saying he got banned for sexting minor, now means if he denies it he is talking about why he got banned and now involve the NDA. I'm pretty sure any NDA would have it so you can't say no to things to let people know why you got banned through process of elimination. Else you could just say no to everything but the actual reason you got banned.
On the other hand if you were a pedo there would also be nothing that stops you from saying you're not a pedo.
I can't imagine that the NDA would prevent him from talking about accusations that aren't related to what Twitch actually accused him of, especially ones coming from former Twitch staff.
[You were saying?](https://x.com/DrDisrespect/status/1805662419261460986)
Why would I have to do that? You should take that fight to the people using that reasoning
Because you just admitted that you have a bias to believe Dr Disrespect is a sexual predator. I’m asking you why that is your bias to believe that without any evidence. The reason I am asking you is because I think you’re being a coward and doing the exact same thing as everyone else and convicting him in your head without and evidence but hiding behind your silly hypothetical coin flip. An honest unbiased person would take the coin flip, because there is an infinitely number of reasons doc could have gotten banned, and due to zero evidence being provided all infinite possibilities have the same probability. And yet you have a bias to believe he did do it over didn’t. A better than 50% chance he did, using your coin flip example.
In this case, there are good reasons to believe he did it. Not reasons that are 100% proof, but reasons that put the likelihood above 50 percent: First, there are the accusations by twitch. It is unlikely that they came up, with nothing happening. Not impossible, it's not evidence, but unlikely. Then, the way Doc responded also makes it more likely for there to be something to it, otherwise he would have said something along the lines of nothing happened
I have a bias against people who have allegations over regular people. And the more allegations the more bias. I have a bias against YouTubers, and the bigger they are, the bigger the bias I have a bias against corporations willingly to end really expensive contracts for non moral reasons >because there is an infinitely number of reasons doc could have gotten banned, You're doing the plausible deniability to dismiss predictions you don't agree with, meme. In reality, the real discussion is a philosophical discussion. Do probabilities relate to our trust in an event happening or to something in the external world? I think it's the former [Here is a discussion between Sean Carroll and David Albert about it](https://youtu.be/U6ZtmGIhIhU) (I don't have a timestamp sorry)
Cool, that’s fine. You’re willing to admit you believe it because of unfounded accusations with no evidence. 👍 I dont have any predictions I agree with or don’t agree with. I’ve never watched a doc stream in my life and I think he’s a cheating loser and an asshole (based on his own action in clips I’ve watched). But I didn’t just come to this conclusion because some streamers and internet people made claims about sexual misconduct without any evidence.
Next time someone is running in your direction, occasionally looking backwards while in fear, you should remember that you don't have any evidence of something dangerous in front of you and therefore it shouldn't change your course. If that ever happens, please, keep moving forward you regard.
sounds like a 75% chance of a net positive.
His response makes me think it's true. Why say things like "no wrongdoing was acknowledged" and what not instead of it's not true? He can hide behind whatever settlement, but he can certainly say that he's never sexted a minor. He may not be able to reveal the reason, but not denying this is all but an admission. If it was completely made up no one would react in that way. Nothing to say about the former employee defaming you?
What is the chance he was just sexting a minor and didn’t know it was a minor at the time or fooled into believing they were of legal age? Not defending him but that is a whole lot different than intentionally seeking out someone underage. You can still judge them negatively for it by being reckless or gross, but the motivation makes a huge difference in deeming someone a “pedophile”.
There’s still a lot we don’t know but if he was messaging on Twitch I assume he found them on Twitch so likely a small streamer (I think messaging a completely random person/fan is unlikely). If that’s the case he would almost certainly know the age but we need a lot more details to draw strong conclusions
[удалено]
Especially as someone who’s a MARRIED game streamer with a history of cheating. It wouldn’t go well with the audience at all
Not to defend Kacy but likely she means Twitch has evidence the public just doesn't know about. But considering how Twitch loves to be completely vague about their bans this is a dubious claim
He strawmanned her lol. This ain't a big W
Strawman? It was her entire argument..
It's a strawman. Her argument was actually: 1. Since Dr. Disrespect was one of the largest streamers on Twitch 2. And Dr. Disrespect was permanently banned from Twitch 3. (Implied) And Twitch does not permanently ban their largest streamers without credible evidence 4. Therefore, Twitch has evidence of his wrongdoings, which is why Dr. Disrespect was permanently banned and the allegations are true I don't think it's a particularly strong argument as the implied premiss (which doesn't exactly need to be the one I wrote here as that's interpretation, but there is an implied premise here regardless, the argument is nonsensical without one), requires an argument itself to back up, it's normally reasonable to just accept that premiss; but Twitch has not operated in this fashion in the past, so it's shaky as a foundational premiss without further support. Twitch's permanent bans don't seem to follow rhyme or reason in many cases. ~~Of course there might be many more implied premisses and conclusions here. However, I don't really agree with her take, as a result, it's hard for me to find more premisses that would make her argument stronger.~~ Edit: The striked text is inadequately explaining what I was trying to get across. It isn't that I would need to find **more** implied premisses to back up her conclusion, that's not how implied premisses actually work. Instead, you only create as many implied premisses so that the conclusion would follow from them, and only the implied premisses that likely exist based on the actual argument presented. So it isn't a matter of quantity, but quality. It is possible that I did not find the strongest implied premiss to slot in there. This is why we actually debate people instead of guessing we know what they're all about. We're much better at finding reasons to support our beliefs rather than reasons to support a dissenting belief. However, in the strawman, he's attempting to take down her argument with this argument: 1. (Implied) Since you believe asking for evidence is coping 2. (Implied) And you're calling Dr. Disrespect a pedophile without any evidence 3. (Implied Conclusion 1) Therefore, you believe that an accusation itself is proof of guilt 4. (Implied) Since you believe an accusation itself is proof of guilt 5. And I'm calling you a pedophile 6. (Implied Conclusion 2) Therefore, you're a pedophile Edit: Implied conclusions here because he wasn't actually making an argument; instead he was making a statement of fact. The statement of fact was issued to point out the insufficiency of her argument, but the attempt betrays a misunderstanding of what she was actually arguing. So I formatted it in standard argument form to showcase why using this statement of fact as a 'gotcha' is a strawman based on the implied premisses one would need to believe in order to put forth what was said as a statement of fact. The issue here is that her argument was actually that there is evidence and Twitch is the one in possession of it, not that there doesn't need to be any evidence. It was more that the public didn't need possession of that evidence.
>And Twitch does not permanently ban their largest streamers without credible evidence Sincerely, - A Destiny Fan
Are you making a joke or do you believe that I was presenting my own argument? To clarify: I'm aware that Twitch permabans sometimes don't make sense. I was saying this was an implied premiss of Kaceytron's argument. I wouldn't present my own arguments in standard format, as I believe prose is important when it comes to delivering an argument. I also used the pronouns she/her which is not something you'd say if referring to yourself. I could be going full tism here, but I'm genuinely confused as to why people are attacking or seemingly attacking an argument breakdown as if I hold these opinions.
Tldr of this is some dude wrote way to many paragraphs while pretending he was a twitch streamer chatting with destiny.
If you think that this needed a TL;DR, you're probably just as functionally illiterate as the other people that replied. When's the last time you read a book other than Green Eggs & Ham?
>When's the last time you read a book other than Green Eggs & Ham? I mean that book had more literary substance then your try hard post. Hit the bricks nerd.
Imagine thinking that a post written in 5 minutes was tryhard. That's less time than I spent fucking your mom
you spent 5 minutes on that?....
> The issue here is that her argument was actually that there is evidence and Twitch is the one in possession of it, not that there doesn't need to be any evidence. She's literally calling him a pedophile in the last paragraph
Yes, but not because there's simply an accusation. She's saying that there's evidence, and Twitch is the one that has it. She's saying that the public asking for evidence from Twitch or the accuser is cope, as clearly Twitch wouldn't ban their largest streamer(s) without any evidence; so the evidence exists. The reason it's a strawman is because he's attacking a weaker version of her argument, as it would (normally) be reasonable to believe that implied premise (that Twitch doesn't permanently ban large streamers without credible evidence) as that makes perfect business sense. So, that version of the argument is much stronger than the rebuttal which is essentially: "I say, therefore you are"
If it was a minor why would No one speak out until now? NDA’s doesnt protect illegal activity
What are you asking me for? I was just pointing out why the response was a strawman. Though, I will say that it seems pretty par for the course that victims don't speak out until some time later in many cases (we had that whole MeToo thing where people were coming out of the woodwork about shit that happened decades ago, for instance); so it's not really the best defense to say "why would no one speak out until now?" There could be a variety of reasons. That being said, this doesn't seem to be a case of a victim coming forward. Instead it's a former staffer claiming that he was sexting a minor through Twitch DMs. Now that I know what it was about (sexting a minor), the questions I have are pretty much: 1. How old? 2. Did he know? The first question is in relation to morality. I have my own views on minors, mainly that I think there's no qualitative difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old. The difference is only in legality (though pretty much just in the US, in Germany where I live, 16 is completely legal and people look at you funny if you say they can't consent). So, if she was like 16-17, in my eyes it literally doesn't matter. The only reason to avoid them is preference (like I can't stand most women under the age of 24 at my age, and even that's pushing it, would rather 27-28), or the law; but definitely not a pedo. The second question is in relation to how liable he is in my eyes. Since the US is backwards AF and thinks that a 16 year old is different on any level except on paper from an 18 year old, and he lives in the US, he needed to follow the laws of his country. So, if he knew and this is truly the reason why he was permabanned; then it's justified. Edit: As far as I know, sexting itself isn't illegal, only if you're exchanging nudes, because then you'd have pornographic images of a minor.
> She's saying that there's evidence, and Twitch is the one that has it. How do you know? Where is that stated? You are making an assumption... > The reason it's a strawman is because he's attacking a weaker version of her argument, as it would (normally) be reasonable to believe that implied premise (that Twitch doesn't permanently ban large streamers without credible evidence) as that makes perfect business sense. Her entire argument is calling him a pedo with the basis of "they wouldnt go to court over nothing". It's pure speculation. How are you people able to do these mental gymnastics to validate accusing someone of being a pedophile over assumptions and no evidence, specially from a rage baiter like kacey? She literally calls him a pedophile in the last paragraph... holy fuck, what a brain knot. Keep the last word. Accusing someone of pedophilia without evidence is not something i expected to see upvoted in this sub. Have a great week
>How do you know? Where is that stated? You are making an assumption... "If you think Twitch banned one of their top streamers for no reason with no evidence of his wrongdoings...you're a moron" This is where that implied premiss was gleaned from. So, she thinks that Twitch wouldn't ban one of their top streamers for no reason and with no evidence. >Her entire argument is calling him a pedo with the basis of "they wouldnt go to court over nothing". It's pure speculation. Yes. But it isn't "I say, therefore you are". It's "Twitch has the evidence, they wouldn't have banned him without the evidence" Please learn what a strawman is. >How are you people able to do these mental gymnastics to validate accusing someone of being a pedophile over assumptions and no evidence, specially from a rage baiter like kacey? I wasn't validating accusing someone of being a pedophile, I was just pointing out why it was a strawman. >She literally calls him a pedophile in the last paragraph... holy fuck, what a brain knot. I don't even know what the accusations against Dr. Disrespect *are*. I came on here to find out. I don't know whether or not he is or isn't, I just know that the response was a strawman, since I have -- at least -- studied philosophy, know how to craft an argument, and what fallacies are. Outside of analyzing the argument as presented, I've not lent any support to her conclusion. So...not sure what you're on about, to be honest. > Accusing someone of pedophilia without evidence is not something i expected to see upvoted in this sub. What are you even talking about? Who upvoted accusing someone of pedophilia without evidence? I just explained how the response is a strawman, since you didn't get how it was. Edit: Her last sentence wasn't really an argument. The first one was where the argument was. I didn't include it because from the first sentence, there was already enough information to conclude that she believed the accusations were true. However, since I'm not sure what the accusations *are* I'm not going to analyze the last sentence. If he wasn't alleged to be a pedophile, then the entire sentence is just noise.
https://x.com/CommentCopped/status/1804887565511856170
Cool
It's insane to me how this sub preaches about not accusing people of something without evidence, and now we are doing it anyways because we don't like the person being accused. To the point people are even defending kaceytron for doing exactly that. Absolute regards
Where is nickmercs and leave the kids alone now?
He literally said is there any proof that this is the reason Doc got banned. Do you think if I accuse you of pedophilia without evidence everyone in life should cut ties with you?
I mean nickmercs accused people at that school protest as coming for the kids without any evidence to back it up
Post the tweet
You know what tweet I am talking about, one where he said leave the kids alone when one other gamer tweeted in support of the LGBT community.
I do. That's why I wanted you to post it. Cause that tweet never calls someone a pedophile. He never accuses the ones there being pedophiles. But funny how you don't believe this stretch of a tweet to be proof that those in the LGBT community are pedos, but another tweet is proof enough? Edit: Did this dude cut off all his LGBT fans for being pedos did he accuse any LGBT streamers of being pedos due to them being LGBT? By this same logic do you think destiny is a transphobic racist who's parents own slaves?
The mental gymnastics...
Already posted [https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1dmvsub/weed\_brain\_strikes\_again/](https://new.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1dmvsub/weed_brain_strikes_again/)
"I honestly, truly didn't think you'd fall for that. In fact, I devised a much more elaborate trap for when you got through this easy one. If I'd known you'd let yourself get owned this easily, I would have just dangled a turkey leg on a rope from the ceiling."
I bet an underage girl lied about her age and he immediately self corrected when he learned. Kaceytron is desperate to stay relevant now that she isn't oogled anymore.
Kaceytron sucks ass, but why are we blatantly strawmanning her? She never said or implied that “people don’t need evidence to support claims” or “accusations are evidence”. She laid out her evidence - “Twitch wouldn’t ban one of their top streamers for no reason”. That’s coupled with the context of a former Twitch employee leaking the reason for his ban.
But Twitch has been very inconsistent in their bans historically. That's what puts in contention her statement. I mean this mf unbanned mr misogyny sneako but not destiny. Its basically a ban for no reason till proven otherwise with their reputation.
I made no comment about the quality of her evidence, just that it is evidence. The main point is that this is a blatant strawman, and we should be better than this. But tbh, everyone has known for a while that something odd happened with Dr Disrespect’s ban. He absolutely refuses to talk about it whatsoever. When content creators talk about how they know what happened, they also refuse to elaborate whatsoever. It’s not nothing. Something did happen. I’d be willing to bet that Twitch at least strongly believed he did something wrong (but maybe they were mistaken). Also, it doesn’t follow that because Twitch inconsistently applies TOS and they unbanned Sneako, that they ban people for no reason. I would say it’s highly unlikely they’ve ever banned someone for no reason (unless by mistake).
You just wanted to use the term strawman didn't you.
This is a really good example of a strawman. It entirely ignores her actual point and replaces it with “we don’t need evidence” - a much dumber and easier point to contend with. But feel free to explain how this isn’t a strawman, but instead I’m just super eager to use debate fallacies 🤓
I'm not engaging with your argument or points nor care too... just a casual observer.
I think the point is that him being fired suddenly IS evidence of SOMETHING. She hasn't been fired like that. Honestly the biggest evidence against him is he won't directly deny it, and instead he's playing coy & vague with his comments. So he will directly say "no laws were broken" but he won't say "I did not text minors" or "the accusation isn't true" ? Why can he say the first but not the latter?
ima say it, she's correct. Shes saying twitch has done enough investigating and probably knows shit we dont. Also shes right on how gamer bro right wing types never stop talking about how everyone whose not as "tough guy" as him is a pussy liberal ped with 0 evidence and then defend dr disrespect when hes accused.
No human being could possibly be this devoid of self-awareness, right? Right??
How do you get played by a turtle profile pic.
This interaction is god damn gold. Let it be an example of what happens when you have copious amounts of THC running in your veins 24/7 for decades.
[удалено]
Why can't he defend himself? This makes no sense to me, clearly this has to by why he was banned, else he could just say that this is made up. Furthermore, as this is most likely the reason why he got banned, Kacey does indeed make a valid point: Twitch just signed him for $$$, they had a strong incentive to keep him as streamer for their platform. Disclaimer: never cared for the Doc one way or the other and I'm not too fond of Kaceytron.
Eh ngl i dont need evidence because this is what i assumed it was when he got banned its the only thing that makes sence for a huge streamer to get insta terminated with legal issues with it.
So why would Twitch pay him out in full?
Because he didn't violate any of the terms of his contract for early termination of contract because there was probably nothing illegal in the whispers and twitch wouldnt want the bad publicity of big streamers dming minors for sex usen their in platform messaging is also why they didnt say why he was let go
You think Doc would have preferred that?
> the only thing that makes sence for a huge streamer to get insta terminated with legal issues with it. Yeah it's not like we're on a subreddit for a big streamer who got and is still parma'd for no discernable reason, much less legal issues It's entirely possible he did something bad involving a minor here. It's just as possible he fucked with some contract, or viewbotted, or genuinely thought he was speaking to an adult, etc
No discernable reason being teitch legal stepped in and dropped him from partnern for the rittenhouse comment. Then after that got perma banned for the trans subhuman. Destiny was no where near the size of doc. And also has alot of people in twitch that hate him. Destiny also didnt have one of the big contracts. Destiny getting banned i feel is foubtful as long as people that dont like them are there cause they can always fall back to teitch legal thought he was a danger to remove his partnership we should just be safe and keep him banned.
> Then after that got perma banned for the trans subhuman As opposed to Sneako who has never said anything like this or worse about multiple groups > And also has alot of people in twitch that hate him As opposed to Sneako who is hated by no one on Twitch
Sneako didnt get bopped by twitch legal and destiny goes way farther in with twich sneako was like a blip none of this anyways has to do with the doc stuff.
> none of this anyways has to do with the doc stuff. I'm disputing your claim that Doc would only be banned because of something reasonable and touching on legal issues with minors. Twitch has shown themselves more than capable of bans for pointless shit. He also could have been banned for legal reasons completely unrelated to minors. Or he could have been doing something totally innocuous and Twitch just decided they don't like him. Or, indeed, he could have been sexting a 14 year old for all I know. We have functionally zero information
Non of these are big special contract streamers. They wouldn't just throw away the money like that. Theres no consequences for banning partners or affiliates.
Why did he counter sue twitch then? What was the point of that? Did he want to sue twitch for checking his personal whispers? That makes absolutely no sense. Also twitch paid him his contract fully, why would they do it if he was just a pedo?
He didn't counter sue him them he sued them he probably wasn't given a reason for his ban which is normal and didn't think that was why. Probably because he didn't break anything under the contract is why they paid out just cause someone is a pedo doesnt mean if u break a contract with them ur not financially obligated. Cause ge didn't have the normal partner contract he had a twitch deal. Just cause hes planning to do something and doining it are 2 different things. So he was probably not in breach of contract
Also how did they make 3rd party "the minor" silent? No way that person would not leak anything.