F Champ Receives Lifetime Ban, Racism in the FGC/USA, and Other Prevalent Social Discussions

[NaCl man]

@NaCl man there we go, post 2,562. Me saying that it wasn't justified (with the information I had at the time). Try again.

Before anybody claims that the tolerance paradox speak is referring to it, that is purely aimed at those in the thread who act like violence is NEVER justified (which is wrong, if that was the case we'd have let the Nazi's take over the world).

Btw, It seems that you've backtracked now that KingHippo has provided evidence. Now that I've seen that video (first time seeing it), I will say that it was actually justified.

No backtrack man I just asked multiple times for why he deserved it and you didn't answer.

I couldn't find why but now I have it fair enough. Understand in the current climate seeing a POC getting his teeth knocked out for a reason i can't find may provoke an emotional response.

The ill wait thing was just a reply to yours

 

[NaCl man]

I'd like to point out the Anarchist guy seems to be an Ancap. The people the entire rest of leftist politics shun because they're generally nuts.

Ah that makes sense. Looking online it says anarchists are far left so it looked like a set up. Or some of the media made it look that way.

 

[NaCl man]

I work with a couple of guys like him. Former Bernie Bros who think the entire spectrum of government is corrupt...which in many ways, it is. Doesn't surprise me. There are plenty of people who want thing to fall off the rails who want nothing to do with Trump or anyone else. Totally nuts.

I acquiesce to this because I'm waiting for the part where the people who ignored my three days of tearing their paper maché arguments to pieces come a'bitching about out it was really secretly the left the whole time that Trump was talking to when he said LIBERATE MICHIGAN on Twitter, and I want to take the wind out of their sails before they even have time to type.

If this thread died tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. Seeing the true colors of some of the people in this community since FChamp started all this has fucked my entire perspective of both politics and the FGC. I'm over it.

Politics may very well be fucked but tbh the fgc to me anyway has and will always be a place as long as you have a controller/arcade stick you are welcome. Background/race/sexual orientation are not an issue. I hope it will always be this way.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

@NaCl man there we go, post 2,562. Me saying that it wasn't justified (with the information I had at the time). Try again.

Before anybody claims that the tolerance paradox speak is referring to it, that is purely aimed at those in the thread who act like violence is NEVER justified (which is wrong, if that was the case we'd have let the Nazi's take over the world).

Btw, It seems that you've backtracked now that KingHippo has provided evidence. Now that I've seen that video (first time seeing it), I will say that it was actually justified.

Seeing what hippo posted i will also agree that its justified. Definitely not unreasonable to ask for evidence.

As one of the weirdo centrists (lol), sorry but I do typically like to see people get their teeth knocked out if they deserve it, which is the case here.

Violence is justified in a lot of cases, with the nazis being the biggest example, and id be lying if I said id be nonviolent to someone breaking into my house as the smallest example. I just don't want to support violence without knowing what im supporting, but in this case yeah dude had it coming.

 

[Wrenchfarm]

I'm old enough to remember when kicking in a nazi's teeth was a noble and honored achievement in the USA.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

So is he on a side or is he just another nut job?
Where the others the same or where they right wing nutters?

Honestly, in this case, I don't give a shit. He tried to kidnap a sitting governor. It makes zero difference to me. My biggest problem in this thread has been people getting on a soapbox about how the American left wing of politics - not Russia, not China, not anywhere else where Communism or anything of the sort are actually in a position of power, I mean right here specifically - has been anywhere close to as toxic, violent, vitriolic, and all around dangerous as the right, when all you have to do is look at the evidence of the last 20 years to see that's not at all the case. And then they go quiet when you get the upper hand so it looks like what you have to say isn't worth responding to, only to suddenly reappear reinvigorated when you at something they can throw a bunch of vague statistics and regurgitated talking points at, because then you have to start all over again, and it's up to the participants of the debate to go back and do the reading to see who was actually right, which most people won't do.
THAT is what I get angry about, because it's been happening in this thread since it was opened, and people are still talking like they should be taken seriously when they've been on the wrong side the whole time. Those people need to learn that you can't use the Karl Rove/Ben Shapiro playbook on someone who knows it better than they do.

And another thing:

I'm old enough to remember when kicking in a nazi's teeth was a noble and honored achievement in the USA.

I agree. Fuck Nazis and their teeth, and fuck Nick Cannon for even giving that piece of shit Spencer a platform to preach from.

 

[Juggs]

I don’t understand the logic of condoning violence when it’s against someone you disagree with, but then condemning it when it’s against someone you agree with. That just means anyone can use the exact same argument to justify violence against anyone. There is zero difference. And I know you will say “there is a difference, I’M on the right side, THEY’RE on the wrong side”, but again... both sides can say this. Then you will say “yeah, but MY side isn’t as bad”, or “I’m on the GOOD side”, “I’m on the RIGHT side of history”. And... once again, that isn’t an exclusive argument, anyone can make these claims no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

When you resort to violence, you’re doing a disservice to your side and your position. You’re further legitimizing what the opposition is saying. It’s also “I can’t come up with a better argument, so I’m just gonna shut you up by punching you in the face”. It’s absolutely barbaric behavior, that does nothing but hurt your side. Seems like a pretty obvious take, but maybe I’m missing something, idk.

To be clear, I have zero sympathy for bigoted idiots professing hate getting knocked tf out. My point is it only makes them look better and they can then become the victim. That’s the absolute last thing you want.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

I don’t understand the logic of condoning violence when it’s against someone you disagree with, but then condemning it when it’s against someone you agree with. That just means anyone can use the exact same argument to justify violence against anyone. There is zero difference. And I know you will say “there is a difference, I’M on the right side, THEY’RE on the wrong side”, but again... both sides can say this. Then you will say “yeah, but MY side isn’t as bad”, or “I’m on the GOOD side”, “I’m on the RIGHT side of history”. And... once again, that isn’t an exclusive argument, anyone can make these claims no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

When you resort to violence, you’re doing a disservice to your side and your position. You’re further legitimizing what the opposition is saying. It’s also “I can’t come up with a better argument, so I’m just gonna shut you up by punching you in the face”. It’s absolutely barbaric behavior, that does nothing but hurt your side. Seems like a pretty obvious take, but maybe I’m missing something, idk.

To be clear, I have zero sympathy for bigoted idiots professing hate getting knocked tf out. My point is it only makes them look better and they can then become the victim. That’s the absolute last thing you want.

Some groups of people are so shitty that violence is literally the only thing they learn from, and even that doesn't help most of the time.
I'm probably wrong, and I understand this take I have is one not a lot of people will agree with, and I accept that. I just can't bring myself to feel anything sympathetic for devout Nazis and white supremacists, especially when the person in the White House encourages their behavior every chance he gets.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

I don’t understand the logic of condoning violence when it’s against someone you disagree with, but then condemning it when it’s against someone you agree with. That just means anyone can use the exact same argument to justify violence against anyone. There is zero difference. And I know you will say “there is a difference, I’M on the right side, THEY’RE on the wrong side”, but again... both sides can say this. Then you will say “yeah, but MY side isn’t as bad”, or “I’m on the GOOD side”, “I’m on the RIGHT side of history”. And... once again, that isn’t an exclusive argument, anyone can make these claims no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

When you resort to violence, you’re doing a disservice to your side and your position. You’re further legitimizing what the opposition is saying. It’s also “I can’t come up with a better argument, so I’m just gonna shut you up by punching you in the face”. It’s absolutely barbaric behavior, that does nothing but hurt your side. Seems like a pretty obvious take, but maybe I’m missing something, idk.

To be clear, I have zero sympathy for bigoted idiots professing hate getting knocked tf out. My point is it only makes them look better and they can then become the victim. That’s the absolute last thing you want.

I mean this politely but this is an incredibly naive take.

Some opinions/viewpoints do not deserve a platform. If somebody was walking around trying his best to convince white people that POC should be murdered where they stand on the streets, then he needs knocking the fuck out and shutting up. Some ideologies are bad, hateful and dangerous and if they're allowed to spread then they poison the minds of those who are susceptible and thus have the very strong likelihood of leading to/encouraging further harm. We've seen this with QAnon. Richard Spencer getting punched was beautiful because he is a fucking neo-Nazi. He did not and does not deserve a platform.

And again, this attitude falters when we bring up WW2. Should we have let the Nazi's spread that ideology without opposing them? Let's bring that to modern day, what about China oppressing the Uighurs? Do you think people should stand by and let it happen because Chinas opinion is that the Uighurs need 're-educating' in order to fit into Chinese society?

Again, refer to my image about the tolerance paradox.

 

[Baconlord]

I don’t understand the logic of condoning violence when it’s against someone you disagree with, but then condemning it when it’s against someone you agree with. That just means anyone can use the exact same argument to justify violence against anyone. There is zero difference. And I know you will say “there is a difference, I’M on the right side, THEY’RE on the wrong side”, but again... both sides can say this. Then you will say “yeah, but MY side isn’t as bad”, or “I’m on the GOOD side”, “I’m on the RIGHT side of history”. And... once again, that isn’t an exclusive argument, anyone can make these claims no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

When you resort to violence, you’re doing a disservice to your side and your position. You’re further legitimizing what the opposition is saying. It’s also “I can’t come up with a better argument, so I’m just gonna shut you up by punching you in the face”. It’s absolutely barbaric behavior, that does nothing but hurt your side. Seems like a pretty obvious take, but maybe I’m missing something, idk.

To be clear, I have zero sympathy for bigoted idiots professing hate getting knocked tf out. My point is it only makes them look better and they can then become the victim. That’s the absolute last thing you want.

look at the history of civil rights movements in the country. Do you think both sides of those arguments are equally valid? I honestly don't care if someone who's against blm claims that they are allowed to use violence. I think they're wrong. if two people believe the complete opposite things on a debate like this then guess what, someone is going to end up being wrong. stop pretending that everyone has an equally good take on shit like this that's just not how it works.

 

[Second Saint]

Speech that causes harm should have limits. Shouting fire in a crowded theater can be injurious, and therefore isn't allowed.

Massive propaganda campaigns that seek to radicalize people into further violence, like you see from white supremacists and ISIS, also causes injury and violence on a larger time scale.

So if that violence is targeted at you or someone you care about, is meeting it with violence not self defense?

 

[ChaosTheory]

@Juggs
That's 100% true and the clear logical conclusion that comes from that mindset. Play it through in your head...

What do you say when the passionate pro-life dude knocks out a guy that publicly advocates for late-term abortion?

Who is it that gets to tell him that the pro-choice guy was not using speech to cause harm?

 

[Sage Leviathan]

When you resort to violence, you’re doing a disservice to your side and your position. You’re further legitimizing what the opposition is saying. It’s also “I can’t come up with a better argument, so I’m just gonna shut you up by punching you in the face”. It’s absolutely barbaric behavior, that does nothing but hurt your side.

Have you considered that violence often comes after the good arguments have left the table? People aren't always so impassioned as to hurl a fist first. Violence is not always a disservice. It is sometimes necessary. It is seizure of power, or a resistance to that seizure.

The "violence is always bad" stance might as well be propaganda against the oppressed who've exercised all other forms of peaceful coexistence. And may I add these words give an evil credence to far-right regressive movements.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

@Juggs
That's 100% true and the clear logical conclusion that comes from that mindset. Play it through in your head...

What do you say when the passionate pro-life dude knocks out a guy that publicly advocates for late-term abortion?

Who is it that gets to tell him that the pro-choice guy was not using speech to cause harm?

Me, because that pro-choice guy isn't a Nazi in this scenario, and whataboutisms do nothing to address the original point about Richard Spencer, so fuck the pro-life guy as well.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

Also, what a big surprise that 50 Cent's only reason for endorsing Trump is because he doesn't want taxes raised on rich people.

50 Cent Endorses Donald Trump: 'I Don't Care He Doesn't Like Black People'

He's not the first US rapper to back the US president.

www.vice.com

The wealthy help themselves, while the average and impoverished argue over resources and semantics with well-to-do mostly white people who have a comfortable enough place on the ladder to defend the aforementioned wealthy.
But people like me are the bad guys because we don't think money should come before everything else.

Fuck you too, Curtis. The end of Power was trash and you haven't made a good album since 2002.

 

[Juggs]

The "violence is always bad" stance might as well be propaganda against the oppressed who've exercised all other forms of peaceful coexistence. And may I add these words give an evil credence to far-right regressive movements.

I mean this politely but this is an incredibly naive take.

Some opinions/viewpoints do not deserve a platform. If somebody was walking around trying his best to convince white people that POC should be murdered where they stand on the streets, then he needs knocking the fuck out and shutting up. Some ideologies are bad, hateful and dangerous and if they're allowed to spread then they poison the minds of those who are susceptible and thus have the very strong likelihood of leading to/encouraging further harm. We've seen this with QAnon. Richard Spencer getting punched was beautiful because he is a fucking neo-Nazi. He did not and does not deserve a platform.

And again, this attitude falters when we bring up WW2. Should we have let the Nazi's spread that ideology without opposing them? Let's bring that to modern day, what about China oppressing the Uighurs? Do you think people should stand by and let it happen because Chinas opinion is that the Uighurs need 're-educating' in order to fit into Chinese society?

Again, refer to my image about the tolerance paradox.

And here I was thinking I was referring to individual people with certain political beliefs, not entire countries or regimes. That’s at least 2 logical fallacies in play here. Appealing to extremes, and also a strawman. I’m not going to engage in bad faith arguments.

 

[Baconlord]

And here I was thinking I was referring to individual people with certain political beliefs, not entire countries or regimes. That’s at least 2 logical fallacies in play here. Appealing to extremes, and also a strawman. I’m not going to engage in bad faith arguments.

we are talking about people's political beliefs. there isn't some crazy problem of conservatives getting punched just because they're conservatives. almost all these clips are of proud boys, neo nazis, alt-right, and qanom getting punched. YaBoi mentioned ww2 once as an example and sage never brought up any countries or regimes.

 

[KingHippo]

I would say I condemn violence in general, but I also agree with Civil Rights icon James Forman when he says "If we can't get a seat at the table let's knock the fucking legs off"

When you have a group whose sole ideology is to be violent and nasty in deference to the status quo, showing up with guns to intimidate people, they deserve to get punched in the face. Their table has no chairs! They will not engage you in "debate," they would do the same thing they cry wolf over first, and in the case of the rally organizer, he did.

When militias start threatening force and intimidating state governments with the aid of the local pigs, I'm not going to shed a tear when one of them gets their teeth knocked out. Murder I'm not so keen on, but punching back is fair game.

Please do not buy into the rhetoric of your everyday conservative getting punched, it's an embarrassing notion and not at all who's getting decked in the face.

 

[ChaosTheory]

Me, because that pro-choice guy isn't a Nazi in this scenario, and whataboutisms do nothing to address the original point about Richard Spencer, so fuck the pro-life guy as well.

It's not whataboutism. It's an example of subjectivity. To some people, there's nothing worse than abortion.

Flip the example around and have the pro-choice guy punching the pro-life guy for trying to control women's bodies. Who tells him not to punch the pro-lifer?

Or just substitute the pro-life/pro-choice example with any other passionate opposition dynamic. If most people thought like people who support this kind of thing, you'd see a ridiculous society.

Luck for us, only a small portion do.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

I would say I condemn violence in general, but I also agree with Civil Rights icon James Forman when he says "If we can't get a seat at the table let's knock the fucking legs off"

When you have a group whose sole ideology is to be violent and nasty in deference to the status quo, showing up with guns to intimidate people, they deserve to get punched in the face. Their table has no chairs! They will not engage you in "debate," they would do the same thing they cry wolf over first, and in the case of the rally organizer, he did.

When militias start threatening force and intimidating state governments with the aid of the local pigs, I'm not going to shed a tear when one of them gets their teeth knocked out. Murder I'm not so keen on, but punching back is fair game.

Please do not buy into the rhetoric of your everyday conservative getting punched, it's an embarrassing notion and not at all who's getting decked in the face.

Bless this post.

Also, still waiting for the "Box is a leftist anarchist" crowd to speak up. Maybe y'all have finally learned your lesson.

Yeah, I'm gonna keep harping on it. I'm fucking pissed I spent half the year being told I was wrong and my opinion wasn't worth acknowledging, and now those people are nowhere to be found.

It's not whataboutism. It's an example of subjectivity. To some people, there's nothing worse than abortion.

Flip the example around and have the pro-choice guy punching the pro-life guy for trying to control women's bodies. Who tells him not to punch the pro-lifer?

Or just substitute the pro-life/pro-choice example with any other passionate opposition dynamic. If most people thought like people who support this kind of thing, you'd see a ridiculous society.

Luck for us, only a small portion do.

This still has absolutely nothing to do with the original point we were just discussing: Nazis and white supremacists. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers are a completely different ballgame, neither of which I would recommend punching in the face.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

And here I was thinking I was referring to individual people with certain political beliefs, not entire countries or regimes. That’s at least 2 logical fallacies in play here. Appealing to extremes, and also a strawman. I’m not going to engage in bad faith arguments.

I’m sorry but that’s a serious cop out.

How do you think they started out? Ideologies, that were allowed to spread. The same as the alt-right and batshit insane bollocks such as QAnon.

Stop being so dense about this, it’s such a strange - and incorrect - hill to die on.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

Also, what a big surprise that 50 Cent's only reason for endorsing Trump is because he doesn't want taxes raised on rich people.

50 Cent Endorses Donald Trump: 'I Don't Care He Doesn't Like Black People'

He's not the first US rapper to back the US president.

www.vice.com

The wealthy help themselves, while the average and impoverished argue over resources and semantics with well-to-do mostly white people who have a comfortable enough place on the ladder to defend the aforementioned wealthy.
But people like me are the bad guys because we don't think money should come before everything else.

Fuck you too, Curtis. The end of Power was trash and you haven't made a good album since 2002.

Another sell out.

From reading the responses to his initial tweet, it is absolutely ASTOUNDING how STUPID many Americans are with how little they understand progressive tax.

If anybody here thinks that people would get taxed 62% on an income of 400k, then you’re a fucking moron and I can easily explain basics such as the tax system for you.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

If anybody here thinks that people would get taxed 62% on an income of 400k, then you’re a fucking moron and I can easily explain basics such as the tax system for you.

Yeahhhhh it's shocking how many people believe and fear this.

 

[Marlow]

Yeahhhhh it's shocking how many people believe and fear this.

People not understanding how marginal tax rates work is one of my bigger pet peeves. Right up there with who think that the estate tax will apply to them.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

People not understanding how marginal tax rates work is one of my bigger pet peeves. Right up there with who think that the estate tax will apply to them.

Like yeah they're totally going to take 62% of a person's income. The fuck.