What's new

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

Sage Leviathan

I'm platinum mad!
In what way, shape, or form does the KKK represent mainstream America? Which entity would you like to disband the KKK? The local police? The military? The FBI? You have given no specific answers.

The only thing you have demonstrated thus far is that you are against the first amendment. If a group of racist white people want to assemble peacefully, they are constitutionally permitted to do so. However, the very moment in which they issue threats of violence, they ought to be arrested immediately and charged with crimes.
The KKK's very existence is a hate crime.
Their voices should be forever muted.

But apparently not because according to Dave they should be able to wave Nazi flags and casually walk around with AR-15s as long as they do so respectfully and genteel. Or am I misreading? Did you forget a /s?
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

I WILL EAT THIS GAME
Oh, the irony...



Did you just seriously compare Chris G. and Filipino Champ to the KKK?

I mean, I feel awful saying the following, but I do not reply to you for this reason. Your arguments are ludicrous and the perfect example of far-left ideology.

But speaking of ludicrous...



In what way, shape, or form does the KKK represent mainstream America? Which entity would you like to disband the KKK? The local police? The military? The FBI? You have given no specific answers.

The only thing you have demonstrated thus far is that you are against the first amendment. If a group of racist white people want to assemble peacefully, they are constitutionally permitted to do so. However, the very moment in which they issue threats of violence, they ought to be arrested immediately and charged with crimes.
What exactly is ironic about what I said?
Because I've spent this entire thread IMPLORING everyone to hold me accountable so I don't act irresponsibly or lash out.
Also, I drew the comparison between the two to represent the main subject of this thread, Crimson's post, and the bridge between the two as representative topics as far as situations where trash people are held to account, both in the macro of America and the micro of the FGC. Didn't think I actually had to spell that out, but here we are.

And you're STILL calling me an ideologue and refusing to walk back your ridiculous statement that the left is as bad as the right. But sure, make more excuses for not having an answer when I've given you every cordial and thought-out opportunity a person can offer in the last week to make your case, other than literally rolling out the red carpet and begging you to tell me how I'm wrong.

Cool.

Could you be more disingenuous? I said it wasn't as sinister as sexual assault. Sorry, but being a harassing perv isn't the same level as a rapist. Just basic morality.
What's disingenuous about wanting rapists AND sexually harassing perverts to both be held to account for breaking the standard of basic human morality?

And now I'm not worth answering because my logic is ludicrous and I'm disingenuous. Those are good ones.
 
Last edited:

Dankster Morgan

It is better this way
Guys, I think what Dave is asking is who should get rid of the KKK? Cops? Soldiers? Arrest them? Kill them? I would already say that 99.99% of the population wouldn't condone the KKK to say the very least.

Obviously fuck the KKK, they and anyone else who wants to lynch someone over their race should be arrested. I support the first amendment obviously, but the KKK is different, they shouldn't be afforded the rights of American citizens because their lifestyle and ideology goes completely against what America ideally was meant to be.
 
Guys, I think what Dave is asking is who should get rid of the KKK? Cops? Soldiers? Arrest them? Kill them? I would already say that 99.99% of the population wouldn't condone the KKK to say the very least.

Obviously fuck the KKK, they and anyone else who wants to lynch someone over their race should be arrested. I support the first amendment obviously, but the KKK is different, they shouldn't be afforded the rights of American citizens because their lifestyle and ideology goes completely against what America ideally was meant to be.
I already answered it, let the goverment handle it. The government had no issue dismantling the black panthers when they viewed them as a threat, they should be able to do the same here.
 

Marinjuana

Up rock incoming, ETA 5 minutes
What's disingenuous about wanting rapists AND sexually harassing perverts to both be held to account for breaking the standard of basic human morality?
Nothing. I responded to someone who said Louis CK committed multiple sexual assaults and was wondering why he is allowed to have the success he has despite that. I said that it was because it wasn't sexual assault and that people understand that what he did was a lesser offense. You then started grinding me because apparently you couldn't conceive of a more heinous act than Louis CK telling a women he's going to masturbate to them or whatever it was. Well there are worse acts, violent rape and sexual assault being among them. We all understand that. So I gave you the benefit of the doubt in that you were disingenuously arguing about it rather then failing to see the difference from sexual assault and your example. I think most people want to be reasonable and won't "cancel" someone to the same degree as another, depending on their crime or controversy. Have a good one
 

Marinjuana

Up rock incoming, ETA 5 minutes
You either believe in free speech or you don't. If you want to ban people from speaking controversial opinions, then you don't believe in free speech.

You guys really want the likes of Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump to be enacting and enforcing speech based law? The same amendment that protects bigoted speech protects your speech to criticize the government, to criticize the system.
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
You either believe in free speech or you don't. If you want to ban people from speaking controversial opinions, then you don't believe in free speech.

You guys really want the likes of Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump to be enacting and enforcing speech based law? The same amendment that protects bigoted speech protects your speech to criticize the government, to criticize the system.
Intimidating and propagating hate against other people isn’t ‘free speech’ in the same sense that libel and slander aren’t ‘free speech’.

Even in this country, we have limits, and those limits start where you destroy someone else’s freedom to pursue their liberty and happiness for hateful reasons.

If you honestly believe that’s the same as ‘criticizing the government’, I don’t know what to tell you. That’s sad.
 

Marinjuana

Up rock incoming, ETA 5 minutes
Intimidating and propagating hate against other people isn’t ‘free speech’ in the same sense that libel and slander aren’t ‘free speech’.

Even in this country, we have limits, and those limits start where you destroy someone else’s freedom to pursue their liberty and happiness for hateful reasons.
It depends on what you mean by intimidation and propagating hate. Saying "I think all Irish people are drunks" is hateful, I would say its propagating hate to say so. But saying that's not free speech is ludicrous.

If you honestly believe that’s the same as ‘criticizing the government’, I don’t know what to tell you. That’s sad.
Why would you think that's what I think? That's not what I said, or implied, or suggested. It's sad that you would read that sentence and get what you want out of it rather than taking it for what it meant.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

I WILL EAT THIS GAME
Good fucking Lord this thread is CHEEKS.
I'm trying, Tay Tay. I really am.

I'm genuinely surprised and delighted that this discussion has gone as far as it has. I can't remember a thread of this nature making more than a week before the trolls tore it to shreds.

That being said, how we went from a longtime notorious FGC asshole making a racist meme and deservedly getting killed for it to where we are now, makes me genuinely concerned for the mindset and well being of some of our community.

And @ItsYaBoi and I are STIIIILL waiting for anyone to explain to us who it is on the left that has the same toxicity as the right, because I don't see free speech being used as a shield to defend any liberals or progressives the same way I'm seeing it being used to shield Champ, Chris, Trump and the fucking Grand Wizard now. The First Amendment does not afford you the right not to be spoken or acted against if your entire platform hinges on being out of pocket. All we asked for are names, which a week and a bunch of rhetorical anger later, we still do not have. So I'm just going to call that a W until someone proves otherwise and leave it alone. I'm genuinely tired of arguing in circles about this and getting all rage and no answers. I have left the floor open every day this thread has been open for anyone to prove me wrong or provide me real life tangible information that I can learn from and amend my knowledge and opinions accordingly, because I was raised to listen to all sides no matter how absurd or outlandish they might me, and all I've gotten for it is flak, despondence, and the label of a liberal ideologue, which I am going to put on a t-shirt and wear it to my next local/major, if it's ever safe to have them again.

Let the record show that I tried.
 

ChaosTheory

A fat woman came into the shoe store today...
Intimidating and propagating hate against other people isn’t ‘free speech’ in the same sense that libel and slander aren’t ‘free speech’.

Even in this country, we have limits, and those limits start where you destroy someone else’s freedom to pursue their liberty and happiness for hateful reasons.

If you honestly believe that’s the same as ‘criticizing the government’, I don’t know what to tell you. That’s sad.
Threatening or making a call to violent action doesn't necessarily have to do with hate speech.

Some dummy can say or print all the hateful or bigoted garbage he wants as long as he's not threatening or calling for action.

So we deal with being annoyed that some people are going to say stuff that pisses us off individually in exchange for not allowing the government to be the arbiter of what's acceptable speech.

The government is just made up of fallible people like the rest of us.

For example, you wouldn't want a future right wing president/house/Senate/SCOTUS restricting us from criticizing the police because it's "hateful" in their opinion.
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
For example, you wouldn't want a future right wing president/house/Senate/SCOTUS restricting us from criticizing the police because it's "hateful" in their opinion.
That's why the laws need to be clear. Nobody is getting tossed in jail in Germany for criticizing the police.

Likewise we have laws for hate crimes that extend additional penalties over just committing regular crimes.

It's time for our society to grow up a bit. The way things currently are is just not good enough for a place calling itself "The greatest nation on earth". It's honestly kind of embarrassing what we've become.. Leaders afraid to pass laws for masks because some people feel they want to be 'free' -- wtf does freedom mean when it comes at the cost of so many innocent lives?

At some point, common sense needs to apply.

The principles are good, but letting some hateful people ruin the nation for others because of their skin or sexuality is not a path toward making the US better for all.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

I WILL EAT THIS GAME
That's why the laws need to be clear. Nobody is getting tossed in jail in Germany for criticizing the police.

Likewise we have laws for hate crimes that extend additional penalties over just committing regular crimes.

It's time for our society to grow up a bit. The way things currently are is just not good enough for a place calling itself "The greatest nation on earth". It's honestly kind of embarrassing what we've become.. Leaders afraid to pass laws for masks because some people feel they want to be 'free' -- wtf does freedom mean when it comes at the cost of so many innocent lives?

At some point, common sense needs to apply.

The principles are good, but letting some hateful people ruin the nation for others because of their skin or sexuality is not a path toward making the US better for all.
For the sake of a feel good moment that will also make all the trolls and apologists want to barf, I feel so very bad now for whatever shit was given to you for defending MK11 even when it was as boring as watching paint dry. I am so happy this place has you here to keep watch over it, Sai Crimson.

Also, we are 34 pages into the first huge legitimate political/societal debate TYM has ever had, and it still hasn't caved in yet. Exceptions and haters be damned, we are making genuine progress.

Also twice, so no one can give me shit for being an overbiased radical asshole, I want it to go on record that even though I'm pissed at @M2Dave for not giving me the debate over left vs right that I was hoping for, that I still respect and appreciate him as a person and a contrasting opinion, mainly because he's a well-spoken educator, and also from Croatia, home of the Croatian National Football Team, my favorite force of sports nature since 1998, who came one lopsided matchup against Mbappe and France away from having the single greatest World Cup run in the history of the contest two years ago. Let not the people I disagree with here think that just because we fight over topics like this doesn't mean we won't see eye to eye on a hundred other things after tomorrow. I just take this stuff really seriously because it's been the biggest part of my life for the last 20 years, and the world my most honorable progeny, Daughter Box, has to grow up and come of age in should be one where the wicked and unjustifiable should be brought to justice as swiftly and soundly as possible. We are all one community, united by our love of the outlet that gets us the fuck out of our own heads. This debate has been harsh, ugly, and volatile, but it's one we NEED to have for the sake of progress amongst our ranks as future generations inherit the groundwork we've built.

You want meeting in the middle? This is meeting in the middle. Let's not let all the volcanic activity make us forget that all of us with a singular trolling exception here and there are in the same boat: the one where we want things to get better, and we want our community to move forward from the ugliness in it's past for the sake of a better future.

I feel like I'm going to hate myself in the morning when I sober up and get tagged in something claiming that I'm trying to walk back my "radical" ways by placating or apologizing, but I don't give a shit. I just want those of you with open ears and minds to know that all my vitriol and fury comes from a good place.

The End.
 

NaCl man

Welcome to Akihabara
I think groups like the kkk and every group that discrimates because of race should be classed as terrorist organisations.

I do think there need to be limits on what can be said to a degree.

I know there is a difference between freedom of speech and a call to action but i do believe there doesn't have to be a direct call to action to inspire action.

I am dumbfounded how the kkk is still a thing.

To an outsider America can be very strange
 
Last edited:

Marinjuana

Up rock incoming, ETA 5 minutes
I thought this open letter about the current climate was relevant and important. It's signed by dozens of prominent writers, academics, musicians, historians, etc.

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar
, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana
, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay
, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks
, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky
, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum
, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein
, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford
, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum
, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg
, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Rinne B. Groff
, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani
, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa
, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy
, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis
, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Maschek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter
, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt
, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim, New America Foundation
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie
, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon
, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Lucía Martínez Valdivia
, Reed College
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington
, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz
, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams
, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe
, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

I WILL EAT THIS GAME
I thought this open letter about the current climate was relevant and important. It's signed by dozens of prominent writers, academics, musicians, historians, etc.

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Elliot Ackerman
Saladin Ambar
, Rutgers University
Martin Amis
Anne Applebaum
Marie Arana
, author
Margaret Atwood
John Banville
Mia Bay
, historian
Louis Begley, writer
Roger Berkowitz, Bard College
Paul Berman, writer
Sheri Berman, Barnard College
Reginald Dwayne Betts, poet
Neil Blair, agent
David W. Blight, Yale University
Jennifer Finney Boylan, author
David Bromwich
David Brooks
, columnist
Ian Buruma, Bard College
Lea Carpenter
Noam Chomsky
, MIT (emeritus)
Nicholas A. Christakis, Yale University
Roger Cohen, writer
Ambassador Frances D. Cook, ret.
Drucilla Cornell, Founder, uBuntu Project
Kamel Daoud
Meghan Daum
, writer
Gerald Early, Washington University-St. Louis
Jeffrey Eugenides, writer
Dexter Filkins
Federico Finchelstein
, The New School
Caitlin Flanagan
Richard T. Ford
, Stanford Law School
Kmele Foster
David Frum
, journalist
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Atul Gawande, Harvard University
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University
Kim Ghattas
Malcolm Gladwell
Michelle Goldberg
, columnist
Rebecca Goldstein, writer
Anthony Grafton, Princeton University
David Greenberg, Rutgers University
Linda Greenhouse
Rinne B. Groff
, playwright
Sarah Haider, activist
Jonathan Haidt, NYU-Stern
Roya Hakakian, writer
Shadi Hamid, Brookings Institution
Jeet Heer, The Nation
Katie Herzog, podcast host
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College
Adam Hochschild, author
Arlie Russell Hochschild, author
Eva Hoffman, writer
Coleman Hughes, writer/Manhattan Institute
Hussein Ibish, Arab Gulf States Institute
Michael Ignatieff
Zaid Jilani
, journalist
Bill T. Jones, New York Live Arts
Wendy Kaminer, writer
Matthew Karp, Princeton University
Garry Kasparov, Renew Democracy Initiative
Daniel Kehlmann, writer
Randall Kennedy
Khaled Khalifa
, writer
Parag Khanna, author
Laura Kipnis, Northwestern University
Frances Kissling, Center for Health, Ethics, Social Policy
Enrique Krauze, historian
Anthony Kronman, Yale University
Joy Ladin, Yeshiva University
Nicholas Lemann, Columbia University
Mark Lilla, Columbia University
Susie Linfield, New York University
Damon Linker, writer
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate
Steven Lukes, New York University
John R. MacArthur, publisher, writer
Susan Madrak, writer
Phoebe Maltz Bovy
, writer
Greil Marcus
Wynton Marsalis
, Jazz at Lincoln Center
Kati Marton, author
Debra Maschek, scholar
Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago
John McWhorter, Columbia University
Uday Mehta, City University of New York
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Yascha Mounk, Persuasion
Samuel Moyn, Yale University
Meera Nanda, writer and teacher
Cary Nelson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine
Mark Oppenheimer, Yale University
Dael Orlandersmith, writer/performer
George Packer
Nell Irvin Painter
, Princeton University (emerita)
Greg Pardlo, Rutgers University – Camden
Orlando Patterson, Harvard University
Steven Pinker, Harvard University
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
Katha Pollitt
, writer
Claire Bond Potter, The New School
Taufiq Rahim, New America Foundation
Zia Haider Rahman, writer
Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, University of Wisconsin
Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institution/The Atlantic
Neil Roberts, political theorist
Melvin Rogers, Brown University
Kat Rosenfield, writer
Loretta J. Ross, Smith College
J.K. Rowling
Salman Rushdie
, New York University
Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment
Daryl Michael Scott, Howard University
Diana Senechal, teacher and writer
Jennifer Senior, columnist
Judith Shulevitz, writer
Jesse Singal, journalist
Anne-Marie Slaughter
Andrew Solomon
, writer
Deborah Solomon, critic and biographer
Allison Stanger, Middlebury College
Paul Starr, American Prospect/Princeton University
Wendell Steavenson, writer
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., Harvard Law School
Kian Tajbakhsh, Columbia University
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University
Cynthia Tucker, University of South Alabama
Adaner Usmani, Harvard University
Chloe Valdary
Lucía Martínez Valdivia
, Reed College
Helen Vendler, Harvard University
Judy B. Walzer
Michael Walzer
Eric K. Washington
, historian
Caroline Weber, historian
Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
Bari Weiss
Sean Wilentz
, Princeton University
Garry Wills
Thomas Chatterton Williams
, writer
Robert F. Worth, journalist and author
Molly Worthen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Matthew Yglesias
Emily Yoffe
, journalist
Cathy Young, journalist
Fareed Zakaria
See, now THIS is the shit I LIKE.
Great well spoken read. Names everywhere. Completely agree with the sentiment. And when it comes to the subject of public shaming and osctracism, I believe the same as I do about the death penalty: it should only apply to the unapologetically and remorselessly guilty. Hence why I have no problem with the Louis CK's of the he world making all the efforts they've made to make the wrongs right. If you fuck up, but you genuinely want to atone and put in the work to fix it, you have my support. But I've spent more than half my life surrounded by unapologetic bigots and predatory individuals emboldened by the talking heads and Trumps of the world giving them cause to double down on their prejudice, and it makes one very cautious and paranoid. I commend you for your effort to bring that meaningful quote and paste to this discussion, and apologize at least slightly if you felt some type of way about what I said about harassers and rapists being almost one in the same. But I have a daughter. I'm sure you can understand how on that level, they're not all that far apart.
 
Last edited:

M2Dave

Zoning Master
I think groups like the kkk and every group that discrimates because of race should be classed as terrorist organisations.
Instead of posting an excessively emotional response filled with obscenities and ad hominem attacks, I appreciate and agree with your point. The KKK ought to be classified as a terrorist organization. Trump attempted to classify Antifa as a terrorist organization yet failed because of the group's small size. The same must be accurate for the KKK. The fact is that both groups are too insignificant to matter. Neither has any political power.

I will say that liberals make a good case against the confederate flag, which is sometimes associated with the KKK. While I cannot support the prohibition of the flag because of the first amendment, every politician in American should reject and identify the flag as a symbol of treason and hate. To me, if you wave the confederate flag, you are a traitor to America.

I am dumbfounded how the kkk is still a thing.

To an outsider America can be very strange
Unfortunately, every country has a far right political movement, which is essentially what the KKK is. For example, in Germany the Nazis are the KKK. Also, if I wore the Croatian national soccer jersey and went to some parts of Serbia, I would arguably put my life in great danger. The numbers for the far right are thankfully very, very small, though.
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
Unfortunately, every country has a far right political movement, which is essentially what the KKK is. For example, in Germany the Nazis are the KKK. Also, if I wore the Croatian national soccer jersey and went to some parts of Serbia, I would arguably put my life in great danger. The numbers for the far right are thankfully very, very small, though.
The KKK is a hate group, not a ‘political movement’. The fact that literally everything has to be assigned to some arbitrary (and false) left vs. right dichotomy now is actually working counter to achieving harmony on a broad range of human rights topics.

And anyone who knows the history of the KKK in this country knows that there is absolutely no comparison with Antifa. As much as I don’t particularly care for Antifa, this is an absolutely ridiculous comparison to a group who made their names literally slaughtering entire towns full of people and hanging numerous African-Americans from trees, and assassinating government officials and community leaders. Come on.. This can’t be serious.
 

M2Dave

Zoning Master
The KKK is a hate group, not a ‘political movement’. The fact that literally everything has to be assigned to some arbitrary (and false) left vs. right dichotomy now is actually working counter to achieving harmony on a broad range of human rights topics.

And anyone who knows the history of the KKK in this country knows that there is absolutely no comparison with Antifa. As much as I don’t particularly care for Antifa, this is an absolutely ridiculous comparison to a group who made their names literally slaughtering entire towns full of people and hanging numerous African-Americans from trees, and assassinating government officials. Come on.. This can’t be serious.
Practice what you preach and read the context. I was not comparing Antifa to the KKK. I was addressing NaCl Man's point by explaining that classifying the KKK as a terrorist organization is unlikely to happen because Trump could not manage to classify Antifa, a group of people whom he constantly scapegoats, as a terrorist organization because "they are not large enough to cause everything that Trump blames them for."

If people on the left intend to work together to achieve harmony, they may stop engaging in identity politics and labeling people as racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.
 
If shit wasn't so extreme on either side, the 2020 race wouldn't be Trump vs Biden. Trump will probably win honestly because he is better at getting himself attention, he doesn't care if it's good or bad attention. His flowchart is pretty simple, say something crazy, incite outrage, get attention which will only make his supporters like him more and get his name out there more.

This is a very good and funny video everyone should watch regardless of political affiliation, I think it is shockingly accurate.

Let's pretend that multiverse theory is right and there are countless realities for countless possibillites. I think it's safe to say we live in the dumbest fucking one out of all of them.
 

ItsYaBoi

Noob
See, now THIS is the shit I LIKE.
Great well spoken read. Names everywhere. Completely agree with the sentiment. And when it comes to the subject of public shaming and osctracism, I believe the same as I do about the death penalty: it should only apply to the unapologetically and remorselessly guilty. Hence why I have no problem with the Louis CK's of the he world making all the efforts they've made to make the wrongs right. If you fuck up, but you genuinely want to atone and put in the work to fix it, you have my support. But I've spent more than half my life surrounded by unapologetic bigots and predatory individuals emboldened by the talking heads and Trumps of the world giving them cause to double down on their prejudice, and it makes one very cautious and paranoid. I commend you for your effort to bring that meaningful quote and paste to this discussion, and apologize at least slightly if you felt some type of way about what I said about harassers and rapists being almost one in the same. But I have a daughter. I'm sure you can understand how on that level, they're not all that far apart.
I don't know, the entire thing (especially when looking deeper into it) seems to be against cancel culture as a whole.

Especially as one of the people spearheading it is the raging TERF that is JK Rowling. It screams of 'I just want to say bigoted shit without facing ANY consequences, can we do that pls?'. Pushing it under the guise of 'just asking questions and looking for well intentioned debate' which as I said earlier ITT, is a trojan horse in online discussion to weed in shitty, harmful views. It doesn't make you intellectual because you can sit down and argue your hateful views eloquently, it just makes you a hateful dickhead with a good grasp of grammar.

Some of the people on that list didn't properly read what they were signing up for and have retracted their signatures.


 

Marlow

Premium Supporter
Premium Supporter
Some dummy can say or print all the hateful or bigoted garbage he wants as long as he's not threatening or calling for action.
He certainly can, but that doesn't mean he can't suffer any consequences. Free Speech means he won't be arrested by the government. It doesn't protect him from being fired by his employer, or from being ostracized by society for his beliefs.

Case in point, F Champ is free to express whatever garbage opinions he might have. He's not in jail right now, he's not facing charges, he's not being held fiscally liable for anything. But if his employer decides that he's not the type of public figure that they want to associate with, and if Capcom decides that he's not someone they want to associate their brand with, they're well within their rights to ban him from their events.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

I WILL EAT THIS GAME
I don't know, the entire thing (especially when looking deeper into it) seems to be against cancel culture as a whole.

Especially as one of the people spearheading it is the raging TERF that is JK Rowling. It screams of 'I just want to say bigoted shit without facing ANY consequences, can we do that pls?'. Pushing it under the guise of 'just asking questions and looking for well intentioned debate' which as I said earlier ITT, is a trojan horse in online discussion to weed in shitty, harmful views. It doesn't make you intellectual because you can sit down and argue your hateful views eloquently, it just makes you a hateful dickhead with a good grasp of grammar.

Some of the people on that list didn't properly read what they were signing up for and have retracted their signatures.


Oh that's a big yikes O_O. Jesus.
I guess that's what I get for trying to be positive. Lesson learned.