What's new

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

Marlow

Premium
Premium Supporter
Like yeah they're totally going to take 62% of a person's income. The fuck.
I mean, that's actually not that crazy, but if that's the case you're likely talking about someone who's income is in the 8 figures range, so I think they'll be able to get by without too much discomfort.
 

Marlow

Premium
Premium Supporter
Also if people are at that higher income tax bracket, they likely have the funds to pay for sound tax advice to limit their taxable income anyways.

Man I love talking about taxes. Can we re-name Test Your Might Tax Your Might and have this website be about tax coverage instead of NRS games? People can still have the same buff/nerf threads, but they'll be about the tax code instead of characters.
 

jokey77

Character Loyalist
Interesting to see where we actually stand.

Quite a lot of the left-leaning people seem to believe in violence as an actual option. Yet they are shocked when far-right militias do the very same.

I respect the constitution and the state monopoly on the use of force. Change must succeed through conviction and I will not be convinced by anyone's willingness to use force. We really need more differentiated views and think in more than just "two sides". This applies all the more if some of you want to justify even violence with their political views.

Nor will I accept that said people refer to history and claim that revolutions have brought progress. More often and especially lately they failed miserably. I certainly believe that American history was written by the winners of successful revolutions though. - I do not presume to judge these.

However, when it comes to history, one point seems much more crucial to me: Can you give me a single example in history of a "just revolution" taking place in a country where
  • a democracy existed, and
  • people had an equal right to vote?
I think there is none, because in such systems change must (and can) come from within. Thus I don't think that it is legit to compare the modern situation to any revolution of the past.

Besides I highly doubt that future generations will see you standing "on the right side of history", if you wanted to destroy the very fundaments of their democracy (e.g. the states monopoly on the use of force or the freedom of speech). If you really think that violence was an option, then I tell you: I do believe that you are capable of destroying systems. But I don't trust you to build something afterwards that is only approximately as just as the current system.

Sorry for the harsh words. Usually I am actually very reserved in my choice of words and often row back or rethink my views. For example, because of this thread I am no longer opposed to affirmative action. Alone when dissidents meet me with latent violence, I do not want to give way a millimeter.
 

Second Saint

A man with too many names.
Interesting to see where we actually stand.

Quite a lot of the left-leaning people seem to believe in violence as an actual option. Yet they are shocked when far-right militias do the very same.

I respect the constitution and the state monopoly on the use of force. Change must succeed through conviction and I will not be convinced by anyone's willingness to use force. We really need more differentiated views and think in more than just "two sides". This applies all the more if some of you want to justify even violence with their political views.

Nor will I accept that said people refer to history and claim that revolutions have brought progress. More often and especially lately they failed miserably. I certainly believe that American history was written by the winners of successful revolutions though. - I do not presume to judge these.

However, when it comes to history, one point seems much more crucial to me: Can you give me a single example in history of a "just revolution" taking place in a country where
  • a democracy existed, and
  • people had an equal right to vote?
I think there is none, because in such systems change must (and can) come from within. Thus I don't think that it is legit to compare the modern situation to any revolution of the past.

Besides I highly doubt that future generations will see you standing "on the right side of history", if you wanted to destroy the very fundaments of their democracy (e.g. the states monopoly on the use of force or the freedom of speech). If you really think that violence was an option, then I tell you: I do believe that you are capable of destroying systems. But I don't trust you to build something afterwards that is only approximately as just as the current system.

Sorry for the harsh words. Usually I am actually very reserved in my choice of words and often row back or rethink my views. For example, because of this thread I am no longer opposed to affirmative action. Alone when dissidents meet me with latent violence, I do not want to give way a millimeter.
When someone left leaning like myself and others in this thread advocates for violence, it's for self defense and a long term harm reduction. It's definitely not our first option, and I can reasonably say that it's not an option at all when dealing with the majority of conservatives. I might get a bit heated against people that refuse to see that systemic racism is real, despite the mountains of data pointing to it, but that's ultimately just a bastion of ignorance and violence isn't an option.

When the far right do it, it's because they think other races, immigrants, lgbt+, and Jews don't have a right to exist in their vicinity, or even at all, and if they gain power, which they've done before, they'll take steps to reach those goals. Fuck yes, I will resist that, violently if necessary, because to not do so is tantamount to surrender to ideas that would see my friends, coworkers, neighbors, and family in danger.

They just aren't the same. You're trying to paint the people in this thread that are willing to defend themselves against dangerous propaganda and threats of violence as....anti government radicals? You seem to be some kind of free speech absolutist, but do keep in mind that any hypothetical use of force we're talking about is not by the government.

Also, who's advocating for a revolution here?
 

NaCl man

Welcome to Akihabara
thoughts?
Why in tf was a no knock warrant used here. Who ever signed off on that should be charged. That and whoever said this was the residence of the person they were after.

There would have never been a fire fight and it wouldn't have happened if the prep work was done correctly.

That's my 2cents anyway. RIP to this woman.
 

Rude

You will serve me in The Netherrealm
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.
Nonsense
 

jokey77

Character Loyalist
So what revolution would you
When someone left leaning like myself and others in this thread advocates for violence, it's for self defense and a long term harm reduction. (...)

When the far right do it, it's because they think other races, immigrants, lgbt+, and Jews don't have a right to exist in their vicinity, or even at all, and if they gain power, which they've done before, they'll take steps to reach those goals.
Actually the far-right uses exactly the same explanatory patterns to justify its views. Just google "self defense against immigration" and see for yourself. Besides quite often the extreme-right claims that racial segregation would lead to "a long term harm reduction".

Just like the far-left, the far-right uses positively connotated terms to describe its own views. It also believes to be on the right side of history, to stand up for justice or to serve a higher good...

Violent people are more alike than they want to admit. The inability to critically question concepts in need of concretization (e.g. self-defense, justice, offensive speech) might be the best example for how much they have in common. - I would be very surprised if those who advocate violence "in the name of justice" could provide me with a definition of justice (which is more than an empty formula that fails as soon as it is applied to real life situations).

For me, I underline: Looking at history there has never been a single revolution against modern democratic systems that changed things for the better.
 
Last edited:

Second Saint

A man with too many names.
So what revolution would you


Actually the far-right uses exactly the same explanatory patterns to justify its views. Just google "self defense against immigration" and see for yourself. Besides quite often the extreme-right claims that racial segregation would lead to "a long term harm reduction".

Just like the far-left, the far-right uses positively connotated terms to describe its own views. It also believes to be on the right side of history, to stand up for justice or to serve a higher good...

Violent people are more alike than they want to admit. The inability to critically question concepts in need of concretization (e.g. self-defense, justice, offensive speech) might be the best example for how much they have in common. - I would be very surprised if those who advocate violence "in the name of justice" could provide me with a definition of justice (which is more than an empty formula that fails as soon as it is applied to real life situations).

For me, I underline: Looking at history there has never been a single revolution against modern democratic systems that changed things for the better.
Okay what do you hear when I say violence as self defense is at times necessary and that free speech requires some limitations or free speech will die that makes you think I want violent political revolution? You keep going to a complete non sequitur of there being no revolution against a democratic nation that was helpful. Can you explain to me how this is a salient point? I don't even disagree with the statement, but it's not relevant.

The main point about the rhetoric being similar is actually pretty true for the most part. I would argue that the main difference is I'm advocating for the defense of living people to not be gunned down in a wal-mart for being immigrants, and they're willing to willing to kill people so their culture doesn't change in the slightest because other people exist. The moral calculus changes between actual existential threats and percieved ones. Instead of telling me how my rhetoric is similar to right wing justification, show me how my starting premise is wrong. I would love to be wrong on that.

Do you think I've arrived at the point where I believe violent resistance might be necessary to defend democracy lightly? Because I really haven't.
 

jokey77

Character Loyalist
Okay what do you hear when I say violence as self defense is at times necessary and that free speech requires some limitations or free speech will die (...)

(...) I'm advocating for the defense of living people to not be gunned down in a wal-mart for being immigrants, and they're willing to willing to kill people so their culture doesn't (...)

(...) Do you think I've arrived at the point where I believe violent resistance might be necessary to defend democracy lightly? Because I really haven't.
Here and now I'd say that the threat of violence is by far a greater danger to free speech than those right-wing idiots that also want to limit it. At least in this thread I have seen none, while quite a few left-leaning people are trying to justify acts of violence against political dissidents.

Violence is a way to ruin a democracy, not to defend it. Elections and conviction should rather be your choice of weapons then.

To be fair: If I'd come across a person who really wants people to be "gunned down in a wal-marts" to keep his "culture pure", then you definitly would not be my major concern anymore. If I come across a Nazi or the likes, then I would see it as my job to sit down with him, ask him what went wrong during his childhood and try to get him back on track.

This adjustment is much more work than knocking out the teeth of people who got different political views. So if you have found it hard to sometimes see violence as necessary, then be assured: I propably find it even more difficult to defend democracy without this means. - I just think that it is the only way to change a society for the better in the long run...

To be fair: I probably share more ideals with you than with a White Supremacist. But I find it infinitely stupid to divide the political spectrum into just two sides. At least, if this means having Nazis on the one side and Antifa on the other. The result would be that it might seem like I had to defend right-wing militias, just because I might be a conservative (by European standards). This is stupid. I am miles away from right extremism and would never defend it. At the same time I see moderate leftists, such as @NeonGroovyGator, as my brothers in spirit.

Either there are more than two sides to be on, or I want to divide the sides by other criteria. In my case it propably would be those who see violence against people who think differently as a legitimate means against those who believe in the power of discourse.
 

Baconlord

Proud follower of the church of Cetrion
Here and now I'd say that the threat of violence is by far a greater danger to free speech than those right-wing idiots that also want to limit it. At least in this thread I have seen none, while quite a few left-leaning people are trying to justify acts of violence against political dissidents.

Violence is a way to ruin a democracy, not to defend it. Elections and conviction should rather be your choice of weapons then.

To be fair: If I'd come across a person who really wants people to be "gunned down in a wal-marts" to keep his "culture pure", then you definitly would not be my major concern anymore. If I come across a Nazi or the likes, then I would see it as my job to sit down with him, ask him what went wrong during his childhood and try to get him back on track.

This adjustment is much more work than knocking out the teeth of people who got different political views. So if you have found it hard to sometimes see violence as necessary, then be assured: I propably find it even more difficult to defend democracy without this means. - I just think that it is the only way to change a society for the better in the long run...

To be fair: I probably share more ideals with you than with a White Supremacist. But I find it infinitely stupid to divide the political spectrum into just two sides. At least, if this means having Nazis on the one side and Antifa on the other. The result would be that it might seem like I had to defend right-wing militias, just because I might be a conservative (by European standards). This is stupid. I am miles away from right extremism and would never defend it. At the same time I see moderate leftists, such as @NeonGroovyGator, as my brothers in spirit.

Either there are more than two sides to be on, or I want to divide the sides by other criteria. In my case it propably would be those who see violence against people who think differently as a legitimate means against those who believe in the power of discourse.
All the clips of violence we've shown have not only been of Nazis, but leaders in alt-right movements that have played roles in organizing the unite the right rally and have activity attempted to radicalize countless people with their platform. You can't sit down and talk with someone like that. The most recent clip shared was of a unite the right organizer getting punched by a counter protester because the dude was trying to start another alt right rally. That dude getting punched played a role in preventing another unite the right rally. Now imo, this instance of violence was a lot more justifiable then when a far right militia tried to kidnap a governor
 

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
You can't sit down and talk with someone like that.
I think this is the best point that has been made in the last couple pages. At a certain point, civil discourse isn't an option. Im not saying sucker punching the guy like a pussy is the way to do it because I also think there is an arguement to be made that people who don't know better will see him as a victim. But like how the fuck do you have a conversation with a racist or nazi? You can't have an actual debate because then you're giving a certain level of credibility to their argument which can be dangerous depending on who it is, and also assuming they'd be arguing in good faith which can also be a big ask. Not saying id hit the mother fucker but I can see why someone would want to.
 

Marinjuana

Up rock incoming, ETA 5 minutes
You gain nothing from avoiding discourse. You don't give someone's argument credit by allowing them to speak. American society is more egalitarian today than it was in the past and that happened because people communicate.

Why might one have conversation with a racist? Because you oppose racism. Maybe you want to punch them instead of conversing, but in the long run, I'd imagine that the former is less productive than the latter.
 

Second Saint

A man with too many names.
Here and now I'd say that the threat of violence is by far a greater danger to free speech than those right-wing idiots that also want to limit it. At least in this thread I have seen none, while quite a few left-leaning people are trying to justify acts of violence against political dissidents.

Violence is a way to ruin a democracy, not to defend it. Elections and conviction should rather be your choice of weapons then.

To be fair: If I'd come across a person who really wants people to be "gunned down in a wal-marts" to keep his "culture pure", then you definitly would not be my major concern anymore. If I come across a Nazi or the likes, then I would see it as my job to sit down with him, ask him what went wrong during his childhood and try to get him back on track.

This adjustment is much more work than knocking out the teeth of people who got different political views. So if you have found it hard to sometimes see violence as necessary, then be assured: I propably find it even more difficult to defend democracy without this means. - I just think that it is the only way to change a society for the better in the long run...

To be fair: I probably share more ideals with you than with a White Supremacist. But I find it infinitely stupid to divide the political spectrum into just two sides. At least, if this means having Nazis on the one side and Antifa on the other. The result would be that it might seem like I had to defend right-wing militias, just because I might be a conservative (by European standards). This is stupid. I am miles away from right extremism and would never defend it. At the same time I see moderate leftists, such as @NeonGroovyGator, as my brothers in spirit.

Either there are more than two sides to be on, or I want to divide the sides by other criteria. In my case it propably would be those who see violence against people who think differently as a legitimate means against those who believe in the power of discourse.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but I'm from Texas and those were the exact deeds and actions of the El Paso shooter, who killed 22 people and injured 24 others. He drove from Dallas to El Paso, a pretty damn long way, specifically to kill Mexicans at a Wal-mart to stop the "Hispanic Invasion." This was only a little over a year ago, and I assure you, things have not gotten better. He did it because he believed hispanics were going to take over Texas, turning it blue, and ruin the country. He wanted the US to be divided up into several large ethnostates so that interracial unions wouldn't ruin the purity of his culture. He believed this enough to justify mass murder, and he executed it.

Do you think I could've changed his mind by pointing out that there's a strong conservative base in hispanic populations? That immigrants actually help the economy and commit less crime? Could I have somehow convinced him that there is only one race, the human race? How about assuaged his fears of multiculturalism rotting his southern white culture to the core?

Do you actually need to hear what debates with Nazis sound like to realize logic doesn't sway them? Because that's a whole little corner of youtube: Debating and shutting down Nazi arguments.

It sucks. It's awful. I hate that this is the world we live in, but it is. These people are out there, and ideas that make more of them are out there. That means show up and yell at Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulis, or anyone advocating for this kind of shit until they don't want to do it, and if they start something, fight back.

I'd like to say that I respect your position. I think everything you're saying needs to be done, but there are people that are not reasonable. They are not rational actors, and they can cause tremendous harm. If they are beyond reason, then the damage they do can only be prevented by deplatforming and taking away their megaphones.

I also think you're right about there being more than two sides. It's a false dichotomy. If I just say far right extremism, that's a nebulous term that is open to interpretation. So to be clear, I'm not against the right. I'm against the set of ideas held by the El Paso shooter and thousands like him I described earlier in this post.
 

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
You gain nothing from avoiding discourse. You don't give someone's argument credit by allowing them to speak. American society is more egalitarian today than it was in the past and that happened because people communicate.

Why might one have conversation with a racist? Because you oppose racism. Maybe you want to punch them instead of conversing, but in the long run, I'd imagine that the former is less productive than the latter.
I typically will agree that nothing is gained by avoiding discourse. Read page 101 though if you wanna see why you wouldn't wanna have a conversation with someone who's mind is absolutely stone cold made up about an entire group of people, see the brain damage I was blessed with for trying to see the other perspective. Before that conversation I woulda agreed with you 100% on this, but now I see it's a little more nuanced.
 

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
Well, I hate to break it to you, but I'm from Texas and those were the exact deeds and actions of the El Paso shooter, who killed 22 people and injured 24 others. He drove from Dallas to El Paso, a pretty damn long way, specifically to kill Mexicans at a Wal-mart to stop the "Hispanic Invasion." This was only a little over a year ago, and I assure you, things have not gotten better. He did it because he believed hispanics were going to take over Texas, turning it blue, and ruin the country. He wanted the US to be divided up into several large ethnostates so that interracial unions wouldn't ruin the purity of his culture. He believed this enough to justify mass murder, and he executed it.

Do you think I could've changed his mind by pointing out that there's a strong conservative base in hispanic populations? That immigrants actually help the economy and commit less crime? Could I have somehow convinced him that there is only one race, the human race? How about assuaged his fears of multiculturalism rotting his southern white culture to the core?

Do you actually need to hear what debates with Nazis sound like to realize logic doesn't sway them? Because that's a whole little corner of youtube: Debating and shutting down Nazi arguments.

It sucks. It's awful. I hate that this is the world we live in, but it is. These people are out there, and ideas that make more of them are out there. That means show up and yell at Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulis, or anyone advocating for this kind of shit until they don't want to do it, and if they start something, fight back.

I'd like to say that I respect your position. I think everything you're saying needs to be done, but there are people that are not reasonable. They are not rational actors, and they can cause tremendous harm. If they are beyond reason, then the damage they do can only be prevented by deplatforming and taking away their megaphones.

I also think you're right about there being more than two sides. It's a false dichotomy. If I just say far right extremism, that's a nebulous term that is open to interpretation. So to be clear, I'm not against the right. I'm against the set of ideas held by the El Paso shooter and thousands like him I described earlier in this post.
Yeah. Dude who shot up my school in 2017 had swastikas on his body, he wasn't there to talk.
 

Second Saint

A man with too many names.


If the socialists, trade unionists, and Jews had a reasonable conversation to open up the public discourse peacefully to try and change their ideals, do you think they would've been left to speak up for the Lutherans?

If all you do is talk, people who don't care what you say will dismantle democracy right in front of you and laugh while they do it.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

(NOTHING)
Premium Supporter
"No one is legally discriminated against in America"

I'm still waiting to hear what the conspicuously quiet people who spent the majority of the thread telling me I wasn't worth debating things with have to say.

You gain nothing from avoiding discourse. You don't give someone's argument credit by allowing them to speak. American society is more egalitarian today than it was in the past and that happened because people communicate.

Why might one have conversation with a racist? Because you oppose racism. Maybe you want to punch them instead of conversing, but in the long run, I'd imagine that the former is less productive than the latter.
I absolutely agree. I work with two avid Trump supporting conservative guys in my store who probably believe stuff I could never bring myself to believe, and we talk every day we're on shift together, about everything from our beliefs, to what we have in common, to MK and the new Mario game pack coming out on the Switch. Outside of the scope of all this, they're two of the nicest and most well-spoken fellas I've met since moving to Tennessee.
 

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
I absolutely agree. I work with two avid Trump supporting conservative guys in my store who probably believe stuff I could never bring myself to believe, and we talk every day we're on shift together, about everything from our beliefs, to what we have in common, to MK and the new Mario game pack coming out on the Switch. Outside of the scope of all this, they're two of the nicest and most well-spoken fellas I've met since moving to Tennessee.
I gotta say this happens more often than not in my experience. As a proud weirdo centrist (I like that gonna keep using it), I tend to have pleasant reactions with liberals if I hear them out, and pleasant reactions with conservatives if I respect their privacy. Assuming everyone's socially apt and not insane it isn't half bad.