What's new

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

Lt. Boxy Angelman

WHEN IS GOD
You and I finally agree on something. For a country that claims to be about freedom and options, we have none in terms of political parties.

Also, communism and socialism while well-intended are incompatible with humans because humans are only motivated by greed, not benevolence. If humans genuinely cared about poverty, no person in the world would ever feel hunger.
Absolutely. Genuinely tragic and unfortunate truths, but we live it every day, and the moneymakers at the top of the hierarchy will do anything to keep it that way.
There is no bigger example of that, in my opinion, than Bernie Sanders and how hard the Democratic Party and their media outlets fought in the last two Presidential cycles to keep him from taking power and rebalancing the stacked financial decks. In 2016, he was bringing TENS OF THOUSANDS of people to his stadium rallies on a regular basis until he dropped out of the race, while the Clinton campaign could barely fill a single hall to capacity. Hillary got all the coverage, while Bernie had all of ONE, JUST ONE of his rallies televised and given any serious airtime. On top of this, every major poll that was released the further into the campaign we got showed Sanders HAD the support to beat Trump in the General, and had Hillary either losing or barely clearing the margin of error; yet the narrative was continually painted as Sanders having no chance to win, and Clinton being the only viable hope. 2019/2020 comes, same thing happens, only now the field is comically gigantic, the narratives are even more ridiculous (NO SHIT HE'S GOING TO HAVE SMALLER NUMBERS IN A FIELD THAT'S DIVIDED EIGHT WAYS INSTEAD OF TWO, JOE GODDAMN SCARBOROUGH), and Joe Biden is thrown into the fire in the middle of the race with all the support of the major networks behind him when it becomes clear that no one else in the field is going to outlast or outeducate Bernie. And now, here we are: status quo maintained, rich men's wallets kept safe. We still get rid of Trump, but at the cost of having none of the significant changes a Sanders administration could have provided.

This is why I take personal offense when jokers like Dubs lump people like me with the fucking Democrats just because they want to discredit the people who won't stand for the ridiculous and offensive shit that they perpetuate. I've never been a Democrat a day in my life, and I only lean towards liberalism because it's the more progressive and humane side of the political spectrum. I voted for AOC because I lived in her district and she was BY FAR the best candidate for the job, and I believe the only reason people like her, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Stacey Abrams and the like have been villainized to such a terrible extent, are because the middle-aged/old white men at large in power see the women of the generations after them coming for their thrones, and sowing hate and distrust with their base and the older generation that fears change, instead of fighting the fight with facts and policy, is the only play they have. But you show me a Republican or Conservative who can do the job right, fair, and better than their opponent, I will check their name on the ballot, because living your life and making your choices based on ideology rather than reality is a fool's errand.

Also: Capitalism on its own is the most beneficial to the nature of human greed, but capitalism with tenets of socialism happens all over the world, especially in countries with universal health care. It doesn't happen here because the rich don't want it to, because it means no more making exorbitant profits off of terrifyingly high medical bills and prescription drug costs. It's a humanity issue that's been disguised as a political issue, and neither of the major sides has ever been willing to go as far as they need to to change it. There's no reason on Earth that Jeff Bezos should be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but people like me whose life depends on being able to get insurance through their job will be literally fucked for life if my health decides to go sideways or I catch COVID and it goes badly. There just isn't.
 
Last edited:

ItsYaBoi

Noob
yes, surely we can agree on that. people like stalin are labeled "socialists", while i wonder whats social about slaughtering millions of people for your ideology. its just as absurd as killing millions of middle east civilians in the name of human rights and freedom.

yet i still think my political ideals would have to be called socialist. i think the one thing that always went wrong in socialism in the past is that a kind of "community" or "social body" was valued above the individuals. some powerful elite told people whats good and whats not (while those values were always of a debatable nature). if you went along you were part of that "community" and protected as a member of it, if not you were left to die if not even actively killed. But that took away the self-determination, the actual meaning of life, from many people. so i'd say the only truly social socialism is the one that guarantees self-determination for every individual.

now you could say, "well thats what we got in the western world". but actually here you are forced to apply to competitive market rules in order to survive. that leads us to the exact same problem as in the failed socialist states: you either play along or you die (even though you dont get murdered actively and get a little of social security before). one way or the other, many people are denied a self-determined life.

so thats why i think socialism is the way to go, but the social thing about it is not to have a conformistic society, but to empower everyones self-detemined way of life (of course in a way that is compatible with every one elses self-determination - you cant be a murderer if you want to). A way there could be UBI or at least unconditional social security.
Democratic socialism is certainly the way to go in my opinion.

See: particular Scandinavian countries. They have some great democratic socialist policies (not raw socialism) that have immensely improved their society. They're not blanket democratic socialist countries (capitalism is still very key throughout), but what they have is pretty damn good.
 

M2Dave

Zoning Master
ah, finally the core ideology of capitalism.

so dave, you are a human and therefore only motivated by greed, not benevolence. now why would i seriously consider anything you say about the best social order for all? it can by your own logic only be for your own profit.

sorry if im rude, i know you can be nice, but this is the prime self-fulfilling BS prophecy: a deep disdain for every human being at the core of the political ideology. what do you think is gonna follow from that if not an order of egoism and hatred?

im not saying humans cant be greedy, but are they ONLY greedy? is it the very core of their existance? no. and that can be proven at any street corner by just talking to any person (unless you catch a psychopath). but when youre engraving this (mis)belief deeply into the social institutions and laws, many people will adapt their behaviour to what is expected from them.
I stand semi-corrected. I should not have said "only motivated by greed" but rather "mostly motivated by greed". The reality is that humans have little incentive to financially support anyone but themselves and their immediate family. In socialism, the government imposes high taxes and redistributes the money to society. As a result, citizens have access to free secondary education and healthcare. In capitalism, taxes are much lower so people earn more money which they can spend however they choose. On the other hand, secondary education and healthcare are not free. These statements are facts, and people can vote and decide in which system they would like to live.

I do want to stress that Americans, even some who live in poverty, own more things than anyone else in the world. My uncle and aunt live a comfortable middle-class life in Cologne, but when I visited them last summer, I quickly noticed that they lacked certain things that my spoiled self took for granted in America. They had no air conditioning, no microwave, and no drying machine for laundry. Their apartment was also smaller than mine. Please understand that I am not being a snob. I am merely making comparisons. I think liberals in America are infatuated by the theory of socialism, yet I doubt many would enjoy being taxed at 40% or more. They love their new iPhone as much as everyone else does, which proves my "mostly motivated by greed" argument.

Absolutely. Genuinely tragic and unfortunate truths, but we live it every day, and the moneymakers at the top of the hierarchy will do anything to keep it that way.
There is no bigger example of that, in my opinion, than Bernie Sanders and how hard the Democratic Party and their media outlets fought in the last two Presidential cycles to keep him from taking power and rebalancing the stacked financial decks. In 2016, he was bringing TENS OF THOUSANDS of people to his stadium rallies on a regular basis until he dropped out of the race, while the Clinton campaign could barely fill a single hall to capacity. Hillary got all the coverage, while Bernie had all of ONE, JUST ONE of his rallies televised and given any serious airtime. On top of this, every major poll that was released the further into the campaign we got showed Sanders HAD the support to beat Trump in the General, and had Hillary either losing or barely clearing the margin of error; yet the narrative was continually painted as Sanders having no chance to win, and Clinton being the only viable hope. 2019/2020 comes, same thing happens, only now the field is comically gigantic, the narratives are even more ridiculous (NO SHIT HE'S GOING TO HAVE SMALLER NUMBERS IN A FIELD THAT'S DIVIDED EIGHT WAYS INSTEAD OF TWO, JOE GODDAMN SCARBOROUGH), and Joe Biden is thrown into the fire in the middle of the race with all the support of the major networks behind him when it becomes clear that no one else in the field is going to outlast or outeducate Bernie. And now, here we are: status quo maintained, rich men's wallets kept safe. We still get rid of Trump, but at the cost of having none of the significant changes a Sanders administration could have provided.

This is why I take personal offense when jokers like Dubs lump people like me with the fucking Democrats just because they want to discredit the people who won't stand for the ridiculous and offensive shit that they perpetuate. I've never been a Democrat a day in my life, and I only lean towards liberalism because it's the more progressive and humane side of the political spectrum. I voted for AOC because I lived in her district and she was BY FAR the best candidate for the job, and I believe the only reason people like her, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Stacey Abrams and the like have been villainized to such a terrible extent, are because the middle-aged/old white men at large in power see the women of the generations after them coming for their thrones, and sowing hate and distrust with their base and the older generation that fears change, instead of fighting the fight with facts and policy, is the only play they have. But you show me a Republican or Conservative who can do the job right, fair, and better than their opponent, I will check their name on the ballot, because living your life and making your choices based on ideology rather than reality is a fool's errand.

Also: Capitalism on its own is the most beneficial to the nature of human greed, but capitalism with tenets of socialism happens all over the world, especially in countries with universal health care. It doesn't happen here because the rich don't want it to, because it means no more making exorbitant profits off of terrifyingly high medical bills and prescription drug costs. It's a humanity issue that's been disguised as a political issue, and neither of the major sides has ever been willing to go as far as they need to to change it. There's no reason on Earth that Jeff Bezos should be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but people like me whose life depends on being able to get insurance through their job will be literally fucked for life if my health decides to go sideways or I catch COVID and it goes badly. There just isn't.
You have said a lot. Obviously, I disagree with most of your points. LOL. But I definitely agree that Bernie Sanders was screwed in the last primary election. I am no democratic socialist, but I believe that Bernie Sanders is a decent and sincere human being who wants the best for America. I do not believe that he is some closet dictator as some conservatives do. LOL. He can easily win liberal states like California and New York, but I am not at all convinced that he can win any states in the south as this year's primary election has proven. The word "socialism" mostly remains a dirty word in American politics although a conversation about when the government ought to intervene and when not and when the government ought to regulate and when not makes perfect sense to me. I do not believe that government is evil and almost wrong, which is why I do not consider myself a conservative.
 

jokey77

Character Loyalist
yes, surely we can agree on that. people like stalin are labeled "socialists", while i wonder whats social about slaughtering millions of people for your ideology. its just as absurd as killing millions of middle east civilians in the name of human rights and freedom.

yet i still think my political ideals would have to be called socialist. i think the one thing that always went wrong in socialism in the past is that a kind of "community" or "social body" was valued above the individuals. some powerful elite told people whats good and whats not (while those values were always of a debatable nature). if you went along you were part of that "community" and protected as a member of it, if not you were left to die if not even actively killed. But that took away the self-determination, the actual meaning of life, from many people. so i'd say the only truly social socialism is the one that guarantees self-determination for every individual.

now you could say, "well thats what we got in the western world". but actually here you are forced to apply to competitive market rules in order to survive. that leads us to the exact same problem as in the failed socialist states: you either play along or you die (even though you dont get murdered actively and get a little of social security before). one way or the other, many people are denied a self-determined life.

so thats why i think socialism is the way to go, but the social thing about it is not to have a conformistic society, but to empower everyones self-detemined way of life (of course in a way that is compatible with every one elses self-determination - you cant be a murderer if you want to). A way there could be UBI or at least unconditional social security.
Thanks, I'd call this a great post! - I think that this is precisely the task of the state: As many people as possible should be given as many opportunities for free development as possible.

I totally agree with the importance of individualism. However, I'd say that there can be no individualism if you don't give people the power to make their own individual choices. Now I don't know any system that allows as self-determined and responsible decisions as the free market, while preserving equal opportunities for other market participants. A System that is "compatible with every one elses self-determination" as you put it.

It is the market that raises wealth and leads to innovative new ideas/products, which then lead to even more options to chose from.

That being said: There are some situations in which the free market fails (e.g. monopolies, entry barriers, unequal level of information). Besides some people are unable to live a self-determined life (e.g. because of their bad health). I do think that people that actually never had a choice must receive help from society. As a result I am e.g. pro universal health-care, which seems to be a socialist thing in the U.S. There are quite a few scenarios in which I'd say that market-mechanisms should be corrected (e.g. scholarships for talented people who otherwise couldn't afford going to University).

I must add one thing though: I do indeed believe that the state should guarantee a minimum level of security and open up minimum opportunities. Yet I just don't want it to take responsibility for people's lives. I'd even say that it is inappropriate for an invidiualist to be too dependent on the politics of others (e.g. a state). Thus this is a tightrope walk.

On a side-note: It is easier to fuck up under a communist regime than in a western democracy. These comparisions have really gone overboard, because we are not talking about "a little social security", but a catalogue of Human Rights.

So to end with a question: Do you know any political system that offers more individual choice than western democraties (that are based on a free market)?
 

Marlow

Premium Supporter
Premium Supporter
That being said: There are some situations in which the free market fails (e.g. monopolies, entry barriers, unequal level of information). Besides some people are unable to live a self-determined life (e.g. because of their bad health). I do think that people that actually never had a choice must receive help from society. As a result I am e.g. pro universal health-care, which seems to be a socialist thing in the U.S. There are quite a few scenarios in which I'd say that market-mechanisms should be corrected (e.g. scholarships for talented people who otherwise couldn't afford going to University).
I agree with this.
 
I stand semi-corrected. I should not have said "only motivated by greed" but rather "mostly motivated by greed". The reality is that humans have little incentive to financially support anyone but themselves and their immediate family. In socialism, the government imposes high taxes and redistributes the money to society. As a result, citizens have access to free secondary education and healthcare. In capitalism, taxes are much lower so people earn more money which they can spend however they choose. On the other hand, secondary education and healthcare are not free. These statements are facts, and people can vote and decide in which system they would like to live.

I do want to stress that Americans, even some who live in poverty, own more things than anyone else in the world. My uncle and aunt live a comfortable middle-class life in Cologne, but when I visited them last summer, I quickly noticed that they lacked certain things that my spoiled self took for granted in America. They had no air conditioning, no microwave, and no drying machine for laundry. Their apartment was also smaller than mine. Please understand that I am not being a snob. I am merely making comparisons. I think liberals in America are infatuated by the theory of socialism, yet I doubt many would enjoy being taxed at 40% or more. They love their new iPhone as much as everyone else does, which proves my "mostly motivated by greed" argument.
gonna pick out 2 things:

1. "The reality is that humans have little incentive to financially support anyone but themselves and their immediate family."

that would be circular logic, because if socialism proves to be overall better for all including yourself, there would also be also lot of egoistic incentive to care about everyone - in addition to altruistic motivations.

2. "My uncle and aunt live a comfortable middle-class life in Cologne, but when I visited them last summer, I quickly noticed that they lacked certain things that my spoiled self took for granted in America. They had no air conditioning, no microwave, and no drying machine for laundry. Their apartment was also smaller than mine."

by a rather bizarre coincident i happen to live in that exact same city too. small flats and a lack of air conditioning are common across big european cities, but not because of a lack of wealth, but because they are old and always were stacked with people (cologne was actually founded in the roman era). the rents go through the roof though, but thats thanks to capitalism, which we absolutely have here (with more social security compared to the US though). and we also have a majority of the population call the ghostbusters when you say the word "socialism", as well as a clear maker/taker view on society, all just like in the U.S.. but a microwave and a laundry dryer? almost everyone here can get these if he just wants to. i dont use these for ecological reasons but i could go out right now and get them.
 
Last edited:

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
The biggest problem with socialism imo is it that while everyone has equal value, not everyone has equal capabilities. It doesn't make sense for everyone to be on the same level. Why should I be afforded the same financial freedom as someone like Dr. Ben Carson (not talking about him as a politician, but as arguably the best child brain surgeon on the planet) who can perform hemispherectomies and give a hemipalegic child use of half of her body?

I do think some shit is seriously fucked up right now and some people do have an unfair advantage, but I'm not kidding myself, someone like that should be able to have whatever the fuck they want because they are objectively more valuable to society. I'm not saying full capitalism is the way to go, most decent countries have a MIXED economy of some kind. There is a reason that decent and highly intelligent people identify as both socialists and capitalists.

I believe in equal opportunity, I don't believe in equal outcome, fairness isn't a real thing, not everyone is as smart as each other, or has the capability to be a pro athlete, or even gut it out through college, that is just a fact, as uncomfortable as it may be. It's not a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a thing. Everyone should however be treated with respect and dignity and have a fair shot to achieve their goals, which hopefully will happen some day.

Edit: Also, if the upper class is neutered too badly, the potential brain surgeons of the world are just gonna say fuck it and not go through a decade of grueling training and education, because the reward won't be worth it. Just a thought. Disproportionately good outcomes are motivators for extraordinarily talented individuals.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I'd call this a great post! - I think that this is precisely the task of the state: As many people as possible should be given as many opportunities for free development as possible.

I totally agree with the importance of individualism. However, I'd say that there can be no individualism if you don't give people the power to make their own individual choices. Now I don't know any system that allows as self-determined and responsible decisions as the free market, while preserving equal opportunities for other market participants. A System that is "compatible with every one elses self-determination" as you put it.

It is the market that raises wealth and leads to innovative new ideas/products, which then lead to even more options to chose from.

That being said: There are some situations in which the free market fails (e.g. monopolies, entry barriers, unequal level of information). Besides some people are unable to live a self-determined life (e.g. because of their bad health). I do think that people that actually never had a choice must receive help from society. As a result I am e.g. pro universal health-care, which seems to be a socialist thing in the U.S. There are quite a few scenarios in which I'd say that market-mechanisms should be corrected (e.g. scholarships for talented people who otherwise couldn't afford going to University).

I must add one thing though: I do indeed believe that the state should guarantee a minimum level of security and open up minimum opportunities. Yet I just don't want it to take responsibility for people's lives. I'd even say that it is inappropriate for an invidiualist to be too dependent on the politics of others (e.g. a state). Thus this is a tightrope walk.

On a side-note: It is easier to fuck up under a communist regime than in a western democracy. These comparisions have really gone overboard, because we are not talking about "a little social security", but a catalogue of Human Rights.

So to end with a question: Do you know any political system that offers more individual choice than western democraties (that are based on a free market)?
gonna pick up at the last sentence: i dont think that western democracies, at least european, are ideologically based around a free market (while historically they surely are), but around individual rights. this can be clearly seen in the german constitution which was written after the WW II catastrophy and has a lot of modern philosophical influences. the first sentence and therefore the highest law is: "human dignity is inviolable." this premise has never been fully realised in fact though. rulings of the constitutional court, banning decade-old laws, are always incoming. .

then about markets: they offer way more choice in theory than practically. the majority of the market is controlled by established system winners and everything has to obey to the law of profit. i do not have the choice to work as a composer if i dont make enough money with it, no matter the quality of my music - i do have the choice though wether i want orange or lemon scent playing around my butthole while shitting - not really worth it for me tbh. if there has to be a market economy that some people benefit from while others dont, i think the losers have to compensated by the winner's profits without any duties - because the form of economy is ideological and could also be done otherwise. so find the one the most people like and compensate the others.

but i feel that this goes too far to be discussed here. i generally think that a commitment to every individual's self-determination should be the center of every state, and that economy should be far more controlled by the democratically elected governments, and especially directed at clear goals instead of growth and competition as values in themselves. this does not have to be an idiotic top-down planned economy which has failed before, but can be a smartly constructed bottom-up, federal economy with checks and balances (like in "commons" conceptions). i dont think the system id like is realized anywhere in the world, but some scandinavian countries might be the most progressive im making policies for actual life quality for everyone.
 
Last edited:

Vslayer

Kurses in moose
Lead Moderator
Premium Supporter
Yeah the dude has lost his mind.

The anti vax stuff? Oof. Genuinely harmful bullshitty views, that no doubt some of his impressionable fanbase will gargle down and regurgitate.
Right? And I'm a Christian and there is no Biblical evidence that vaccines= mark of the beast, because it's not something people will take unwillingly. It's explained that we will know and we will have to renounce Jesus to do so. There is this movement of gullible Christians that just get so deep in conspiracy theories dude it makes me laugh but it's also sad.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

WHEN IS GOD
Right? And I'm a Christian and there is no Biblical evidence that vaccines= mark of the beast, because it's not something people will take unwillingly. It's explained that we will know and we will have to renounce Jesus to do so. There is this movement of gullible Christians that just get so deep in conspiracy theories dude it makes me laugh but it's also sad.
Ayyyyyyyy, fellow friend of the man Jesus :D.
Another reason I absolutely loathe the right in comparison to the left: their weaponization of the Bible to suit their needs, and their exploitation of people of faith. It's a shameless and terrifying practice, and one that leads to all of us being lumped into the same bubble. I'm not the churchgoing type, but my faith is an essential part of my life, but I feel like I can't even talk to people or be open about it without being viewed some type of way.

Trump standing in front of the church in DC with the upside-down Bible after the cops gassed the crowd will haunt me for the rest of my days.
 

haketh

Noob
And yet racial gaps in household income have persisted "since the U.S. Census Bureau began collecting these data in the late 1960s." People in large inner cities are particularly struggling although Democrats are in complete control. Have you ever considered that some of their policies are not working?

As far as research is concerned, I have offered a plethora and explained the research in context that I could have written a book by now. You have chosen to ignore everything in favor of a gross oversimplification by connecting racism to every single economical and social issue in America.



Because the KKK is well outside of mainstream America unless you live in the Twitter bubble, lots of racism has been coming from the far left recently, particularly ignorant white liberals who are lecturing African-Americans about what should and what should not offend them. How patronizing.
Shut the fuck up my goddamn God. When I got Proud Bous rolling up & down my City & Terrorizing Black Folk fighting to not get killed on a whim by cops but yeah no it’s Racism on the left for calling a dew
Could you liberals stop with the obscenities please? I vehemently disagree with Crimson, but I respect the politeness, calmness, and research that he is providing while most others are engaging in excessively emotional posts and insults. If you have not noticed, I have been avoiding confrontational language in this thread and I choose my words very carefully as to prevent misunderstanding and misinterpretation. I suggest that you attempt to do the same, particularly if you intend to convince people of your argument.
absolutely the fuck not, I do not owe politeness in the face of disregard of my & my peoples lives, EAD
 

ItsYaBoi

Noob
Ayyyyyyyy, fellow friend of the man Jesus :D.
Another reason I absolutely loathe the right in comparison to the left: their weaponization of the Bible to suit their needs, and their exploitation of people of faith. It's a shameless and terrifying practice, and one that leads to all of us being lumped into the same bubble. I'm not the churchgoing type, but my faith is an essential part of my life, but I feel like I can't even talk to people or be open about it without being viewed some type of way.

Trump standing in front of the church in DC with the upside-down Bible after the cops gassed the crowd will haunt me for the rest of my days.
I'm agnostic but the absolutely gall of Trump to do that was horrifying. He is the least pious person on the planet. See:

 

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
I'm agnostic but the absolutely gall of Trump to do that was horrifying. He is the least pious person on the planet. See:

Yuppppp

To be fair, gluttony, sloth, lust, and envy could be applied to at bare minimum half of the population. He truly does fit all 7 down to the letter though, which is frustrating as a Christian, because a lot of people don't like Christians due to people who behave like him.
 

Icefyre

Shadows
Trump standing in front of the church in DC with the upside-down Bible after the cops gassed the crowd will haunt me for the rest of my days.
I'm not one to be easily offended when it comes to my religious views, but that shit was genuinely offensive and enraging. I'm still angry about it and likely will be for a long time, especially when you consider the amount of Christians that still think he's done "so much" for the evangelical community. The man's obviously never read the Bible but uses it to gain political points. Absolutely toxic.
 

ItsYaBoi

Noob
Yuppppp

To be fair, gluttony, sloth, lust, and envy could be applied to at bare minimum half of the population. He truly does fit all 7 down to the letter though, which is frustrating as a Christian, because a lot of people don't like Christians due to people who behave like him.
Oh undeniably, and I'd wager more than half of the population. I think that some of them - such as gluttony - are in jest really though. It just goes to show how he fucks up on every single one. The fact that some Christians support him and actually think he is a pious man is LAUGHABLE.

Again, I'm agnostic so I'm looking from the outside in, but people like Trump are 100% what gives Christians a bad name. In 2020 we shouldn't generalise, but unfortunately people do and when they think of hypocritical Christians all they have to do is look at the damn president of the USA. He's making a mockery of the religion, and Christians should really distance themselves from him.
 

Vslayer

Kurses in moose
Lead Moderator
Premium Supporter
Ayyyyyyyy, fellow friend of the man Jesus :D.
Another reason I absolutely loathe the right in comparison to the left: their weaponization of the Bible to suit their needs, and their exploitation of people of faith. It's a shameless and terrifying practice, and one that leads to all of us being lumped into the same bubble. I'm not the churchgoing type, but my faith is an essential part of my life, but I feel like I can't even talk to people or be open about it without being viewed some type of way.

Trump standing in front of the church in DC with the upside-down Bible after the cops gassed the crowd will haunt me for the rest of my days.
yay!
I mean, I get it, religion did hurt a lot of people, but people just need to realize you can have a relationship with God without church because there will always be this group mentality, every church will have their particular false doctrines and I think that's dangerous. I'd rather get my answers straight from the Bible/God than ask people who don't know any better than I do.

And yeah, I don't believe Trump is a man of God at all. This man promotes prosperity gospel mega churches lmao
 

jokey77

Character Loyalist
gonna pick up at the last sentence: i dont think that western democracies, at least european, are ideologically based around a free market (while historically they surely are), but around individual rights. this can be clearly seen in the german constitution which was written after the WW II catastrophy and has a lot of modern philosophical influences. the first sentence and therefore the highest law is: "human dignity is inviolable." this premise has never been fully realised in fact though. rulings of the constitutional court, banning decade-old laws, are always incoming. .
Yep, Article 1 of the German "Grundgesetz" is interesting. However, this abstract term ("dignity") only works because there is a long philosophical legal tradition (e.g. Kant, Radbruch). Besides I don't think that the constitutional court refers to Art 1 GG too often. I would be interested in such cases though.

The problem I have with abstract terms is that everyone understands something different. Even in this thread people are talking a lot about "decency", "common sense", "moral" and so on. Yet I almost always would use the very same terms in a different way.

Much is at stake in the sovereignty of interpretation of terms and I do not want to leave this to the left (nor to the right). I want discourse and reasoning!

then about markets: they offer way more choice in theory than practically. the majority of the market is controlled by established system winners and everything has to obey to the law of profit. i do not have the choice to work as a composer if i dont make enough money with it, no matter the quality of my music - i do have the choice though wether i want orange or lemon scent playing around my butthole while shitting - not really worth it for me tbh. if there has to be a market economy that some people benefit from while others dont, i think the losers have to compensated by the winner's profits without any duties - because the form of economy is ideological and could also be done otherwise. so find the one the most people like and compensate the others.

but i feel that this goes too far to be discussed here. i generally think that a commitment to every individual's self-determination should be the center of every state, and that economy should be far more controlled by the democratically elected governments, and especially directed at clear goals instead of growth and competition as values in themselves. this does not have to be an idiotic top-down planned economy which has failed before, but can be a smartly constructed bottom-up, federal economy with checks and balances (like in "commons" conceptions). i dont think the system id like is realized anywhere in the world, but some scandinavian countries might be the most progressive im making policies for actual life quality for everyone.
Again... you can criticize free markets as much as you want. But I asked for a system that offers more individual choice.

If you want to "make money with your music" and lack talent, then there propably is no social system that can help you (without depriving more talented people of their opportunities). - This is not the fault of free markets though.

Actually quite the opposite is true: Nowhere in the world do artists and poor people receive as much support as in western democracies based on free market economies.
 
Last edited:
Yep, Article 1 of the German "Grundgesetz" is interesting. However, this abstract term ("dignity") only works because there is a long philosophical legal tradition (e.g. Kant, Radbruch). Besides I don't think that the constitutional court refers to Art 1 GG too often. I would be interested in such cases though.
The problem I have with abstract terms is that everyone understands something different. Even in this thread people are talking a lot about "decency", "common sense", "moral" and so on. Yet I almost always would use the very same terms in a different way.
Much is at stake in the sovereignty of interpretation of terms and I do not want to leave this to the left (nor to the right). I want discourse and reasoning!
the philosophy of human dignity actually goes into the direction to interpret it as the right to self-determination
a recent court case was the annihilation of the 2005 law about financial support for unemployed. the state was allowed to cut up to 100% of the support including rent and health insurance cost if someone did not come to appointments, refused job offers etc.. this was ruled a violation of §1 and §20 ("germany is a welfare state") and mainly forbidden.

Again... you can criticize free markets as much as you want. But I asked for a system that offers more individual choice.
its not all about choice. if some people dont have enough to live, they are in that moment more important than my choice what brand of honey i want on my bread. and with the commons model (which can be googled) i gave an example for an economy that provides a balance of social security and choice. its also a system where democratic processes could decide over production, which also implies choice.

If you want to "make money with your music" and lack talent, then there propably is no social system that can help you (without depriving more talented people of their opportunities). - This is not the fault of free markets though.

Actually quite the opposite is true: Nowhere in the world do artists and poor people receive as much support as in western democracies based on free market economies.
ok this is just wrong and actually offensive. market success does not equal quality as artist. actually the opposite is the case. a huge percentage of the population does not have a deep understanding of art and the art industry actually tailors its products towards this huge, financially powerful group. if you do anything outside the pop consensus, you gotta be outstanding AND lucky, and if youre inside it, youre still not in the industries' small inner circle. as an artist, you could work way harder and could be way better at what youre doing compared to people in normal jobs, but not earn a cent while they make a living of it.
 
Last edited:
Right? And I'm a Christian and there is no Biblical evidence that vaccines= mark of the beast, because it's not something people will take unwillingly. It's explained that we will know and we will have to renounce Jesus to do so. There is this movement of gullible Christians that just get so deep in conspiracy theories dude it makes me laugh but it's also sad.
I've learned the easiest people to fool are the ones who are most scared of being fooled.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

WHEN IS GOD
Let’s not forget why we are all here:

FChamp is a doodoo.
That's a fact. Gotta throw it back in a circle and not lose the OP, although I am loving everything that I've learned from all the turns this thread has taken. 100% the #1 contender for Thread Of The Year.

Has he made any effort whatsoever to make the big apologetic effort, or is he still playing the victim from inside free speech protective custody?
 

Swindle

Philanthropist & Asshole
That's a fact. Gotta throw it back in a circle and not lose the OP, although I am loving everything that I've learned from all the turns this thread has taken. 100% the #1 contender for Thread Of The Year.

Has he made any effort whatsoever to make the big apologetic effort, or is he still playing the victim from inside free speech protective custody?
He swears he’s that victimest of victims.
Retweeting other “victims” and playing the whataboutism game hard.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

WHEN IS GOD
He swears he’s that victimest of victims.
Retweeting other “victims” and playing the whataboutism game hard.
Wowwwwwwwww. What a Chump.

See, people of the forum, when I talk about how it's only the unapologetic assholes who truly deserve the full weight of cancellation, THIS is exactly the sort of thing I mean.

Take a recent example like football player DeSean Jackson, who screwed up BIG TIME tweeting out of pocket and sounding anti-Semitic as hell, but IMMEDIATELY walked it back and is going all out to make his mistake right, up to and including being invited by Jewish football player Julian Edelman to the Holocaust Museum as a show of solidarity. THAT, defenders of all this tough talking idiocy, is what you do when you screw up on the level that Champ did: you take the L, you atone, and you pray for forgiveness. What you DON'T do is double down on your own bigoted stupidity because you think you're too good to admit you're wrong. Get that Fox News whataboutism bullshit out of here and stop condoning this man blaming everyone else because HE ruined his own career being a racist shmuck. Don't lie to our faces and tell us you don't have that kind of prejudice in your heart when you're willing to go so far to defend those kind of mistakes. The old and outdated bully pulpit "we're the tough guys" generation is done and dusted. Stay mad about it. Free speech goes both ways, and as long as there are closet bigots and hateful morons telling the Champs and Gs and Jaxels and Z's they're in the right, who want things to stay like they were when it was still all f&+#$t this and n+*#$r that and lemme make ma feel weird because her ass is fat, and there was no accountability to keep people in check, there will be people like me and the like-minded voices in this thread to remind them that that time is over now.
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
The biggest problem with socialism imo is it that while everyone has equal value, not everyone has equal capabilities. It doesn't make sense for everyone to be on the same level. Why should I be afforded the same financial freedom as someone like Dr. Ben Carson (not talking about him as a politician, but as arguably the best child brain surgeon on the planet) who can perform hemispherectomies and give a hemipalegic child use of half of her body?

I do think some shit is seriously fucked up right now and some people do have an unfair advantage, but I'm not kidding myself, someone like that should be able to have whatever the fuck they want because they are objectively more valuable to society. I'm not saying full capitalism is the way to go, most decent countries have a MIXED economy of some kind. There is a reason that decent and highly intelligent people identify as both socialists and capitalists.

I believe in equal opportunity, I don't believe in equal outcome, fairness isn't a real thing, not everyone is as smart as each other, or has the capability to be a pro athlete, or even gut it out through college, that is just a fact, as uncomfortable as it may be. It's not a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a thing. Everyone should however be treated with respect and dignity and have a fair shot to achieve their goals, which hopefully will happen some day.

Edit: Also, if the upper class is neutered too badly, the potential brain surgeons of the world are just gonna say fuck it and not go through a decade of grueling training and education, because the reward won't be worth it. Just a thought. Disproportionately good outcomes are motivators for extraordinarily talented individuals.
The thing is though.. Social Democracy isn't Communism.. And I feel like every time this comes up, people are making the comparison to Communism.

Like, everything isn't equal in modern-day Social Democracy -- there's just a floor which makes sure that all citizens have access to the basic things the need in society, as a right. Which imo is one of the most democratic principles of all.

All of those countries still have plenty of experts, specialists, etc. which is why you're seeing more and more professionals and executives here in America who are from overseas. American companies are paying ridiculous amounts to get them, because that's where the talent is.

Like Battlefield is clearly an America-focused game, but the innovative graphics/game technology that powers Frosbite is from a Swedish company. Etc.