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

[ItsYaBoi]

It's crazy to me that people don't understand how presidential administrations work. A president does not just step into office, and all of a sudden everything immediately changes. Presidents create policy. Policy takes effect over time and creates change.

I really sincerely hope that America hasn't gotten so bad that people don't understand simple math and cause and effect. But sometimes it seems that way. So let's review:

Almost everything you listed, started due to policies under Obama. The minority unemployment rates, minority incarceration, and poverty rates all started trending sharply down during his administration.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000031

Look at the Poverty rate from 2010 onward. Literally nothing has changed about the decline through 2020 until Covid hit.

And that's the important thing. All Trump had to do was.. Absolutely nothing, for African-Americans. in order to keep the falling rates from Obama's administration. And that's what he did.

Then let's take a look at the poverty rate:

Spoiler

Same deal. Was trending up since midway through Bush's term, started trending sharply downward a few years into Obama's term after his policies were enacted, and is absolutely unchanged with Trump until Covid. In order to keep the benefits of Obama's term, Trump had to do absolutely... Nothing. And that's what he did.

The First Step Act is a positive development in sentencing and is a great example of what bipartisan support can achieve. So Trump can credit that to his administration.

But Trump's policies also actively hurt African-Americans. For example, shooting down the ACA, which cut the number of uninsured African-Americans by half, with no replacement in place, is absolutely ridiculous if you're claiming the President has minorities in mind. His policies and talking points also negatively affect Native Americans and Hispanic people.

In addition, Trump has absolutely nothing positive to say about Civil Rights rights now. Nor police brutality. He is focused on everything else except fighting injustice, and he releases and retweets commercials featuring minorities as perpetrators, caucasians as heroes, and supporting people who yell "White Power".

People need to stop twisting the narrative and just look at the facts. You can't just become president and take credit for all of the previous administration's accomplishments.

@sub_on_dubs you still haven’t responded to this, why?

I’m sick of conservatives cherry picking and ignoring it when they get schooled. Respond now or we can assume that CrimsonShadow was right and you have no defense. Don’t be a coward.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

@sub_on_dubs you still haven’t responded to this, why?

I’m sick of conservatives cherry picking and ignoring it when they get schooled. Respond now or we can assume that CrimsonShadow was right and you have no defense. Don’t be a coward.

I think we all already know the answer.

People who bait fights by spouting half-cocked racist bullshit just so they can watch the chaos play out and hide behind "BuT fReE sPeEcH" are no better than the aforementioned asshole who gave rise to this thread.
I personally just want him to tell us more about how he's the self-proclaimed "bad guy" of TYM , when he's just a grammatically correct troll who fiends for attention like an addict fiends for their fix, and crows about free thinking while blocking the people whose free thoughts make him look plainly like what he is: exactly the kind of hateful fool that threads and discussions like this exist to expose. Debate and discord is one thing; literal blatant prejudice is another. I'll have a victory shot the day he finally manages to say something disgusting enough to get his ass banned.

Tell me, how many likes is THAT worth, Dubs? Or are you too afraid to answer people mentally and intellectually equipped to pick the metaphorical meat off your bones?

Anyone who he hasn't blocked, feel free to tell him on my behalf to tell him to take his instigatory trolling B.S. back to his Turner Diaries Fan Club page. I'm tired of having legitimate discussion weighed down by someone who desires nothing but to sow chaos.

 

[M2Dave]

@sub_on_dubs you still haven’t responded to this, why?

I’m sick of conservatives cherry picking and ignoring it when they get schooled. Respond now or we can assume that CrimsonShadow was right and you have no defense. Don’t be a coward.

The politics, the philosophy, and the pragmatics have already been explained to you a dozens times by someone who has lived in western Europe and the United States.

In order to pay for social programs such as universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and reparations that you, Crimson, and MrApchem have been advocating, taxes must be increased on the wealthy as well as the middle class just like in all socially democratic societies in western Europe. I have statistically and anecdotally proven that the median household income is significantly higher in the United States than all socially democratic countries except Luxembourg, which is a pseudo country with a population of half a million people. One may make the argument that Europeans earn less money because of high taxes that pay for the aforementioned social programs. The reality is that the vast majority of Americans receive health insurance from their employer if they work full time. In fact, the government mandates that the employer offer health insurance to a full-time employee. Community colleges are a cheaper alternative to highly expensive universities. I concede that the healthcare and educational system have flaws, but I am not convinced that socialism is the solution. Neither are most Americans, which brings me to the following point.

Politics aside, capitalism values individuality over collectivism. This mentality is deeply embedded in American mentality and culture. A politician like Bernie Sanders would have the arduous task of convincing millions of Americans of all races, ethnicities, and backgrounds to pay twice as much in taxes in order to pay for social programs that would largely benefit the poor. For this reason, Bernie Sanders has won very liberal states but not moderate and conservatives states. Joe Biden, who is perceived to be a moderate Democrat, has won those states. I am not being a partisan. I am merely informing you of the pragmatics of the system that you proposing. Americans understand that the system has flaws, but they are not yet ready to throw in the towel and open the door for socialism, at least not currently.

If I had to come to an impartial conclusion, I would state that Americans have enjoyed the most luxurious lifestyle in human history. While social safety nets obviously exist, healthcare and secondary education are very costly. They are free in Europe because of high taxes. The average western and northern European lives very well albeit not as well as the average American.

By the way, REO, Slips, Tom, Zyphox, and I recorded a podcast on cancel culture in the fighting game community. We invited Crimson to make certain that all perspectives are represented. If you have some time to spare, please listen and comment.

 

[Hellbringer]

 

[ItsYaBoi]

The politics, the philosophy, and the pragmatics have already been explained to you a dozens times by someone who has lived in western Europe and the United States.

In order to pay for social programs such as universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and reparations that you, Crimson, and MrApchem have been advocating, taxes must be increased on the wealthy as well as the middle class just like in all socially democratic societies in western Europe. I have statistically and anecdotally proven that the median household income is significantly higher in the United States than all socially democratic countries except Luxembourg, which is a pseudo country with a population of half a million people. One may make the argument that Europeans earn less money because of high taxes that pay for the aforementioned social programs. The reality is that the vast majority of Americans receive health insurance from their employer if they work full time. In fact, the government mandates that the employer offer health insurance to a full-time employee. Community colleges are a cheaper alternative to highly expensive universities. I concede that the healthcare and educational system have flaws, but I am not convinced that socialism is the solution. Neither are most Americans, which brings me to the following point.

Politics aside, capitalism values individuality over collectivism. This mentality is deeply embedded in American mentality and culture. A politician like Bernie Sanders would have the arduous task of convincing millions of Americans of all races, ethnicities, and backgrounds to pay twice as much in taxes in order to pay for social programs that would largely benefit the poor. For this reason, Bernie Sanders has won very liberal states but not moderate and conservatives states. Joe Biden, who is perceived to be a moderate Democrat, has won those states. I am not being a partisan. I am merely informing you of the pragmatics of the system that you proposing. Americans understand that the system has flaws, but they are not yet ready to throw in the towel and open the door for socialism, at least not currently.

If I had to come to an impartial conclusion, I would state that Americans have enjoyed the most luxurious lifestyle in human history. While social safety nets obviously exist, healthcare and secondary education are very costly. They are free in Europe because of high taxes. The average western and northern European lives very well albeit not as well as the average American.

By the way, REO, Slips, Tom, Zyphox, and I recorded a podcast on cancel culture in the fighting game community. We invited Crimson to make certain that all perspectives are represented. If you have some time to spare, please listen and comment.

That has nothing to do with what Crimson was saying in that post. Did you even read it?

Subs made the incorrect claim that certain positive things are down to Trumps presidency. Crimson corrected this and showed how it was due to Obama’s.

Seriously, that was the main crux of his comment. Cool for typing all of that up though I suppose, but we’ve been through this already and you’re not willing to learn so it’s pointless.

@sub_on_dubs still waiting bruh.

 

[RYX]

is this ironic, meta-ironic, post-ironic or post-meta-ironic?

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

That's a pretty great laugh to start the day with.
Also, to the continued absence of the brilliant and clearly not at all answerless Dubs, I respond with the following:

Prejudiced Cowards: they lose the debate by being themselves.

Interested to hear this new Davecast, though. Glad that this argument has blown up enough to necessitate it.

 

[NaCl man]

That has nothing to do with what Crimson was saying in that post. Did you even read it?

Subs made the incorrect claim that certain positive things are down to Trumps presidency. Crimson corrected this and showed how it was due to Obama’s.

Seriously, that was the main crux of his comment. Cool for typing all of that up though I suppose, but we’ve been through this already and you’re not willing to learn so it’s pointless.

@sub_on_dubs still waiting bruh.

Just looking at the graph provided it looks like the poverty line was already on a decrease during the bush administration. The gfc seems to be what has affected the increase and the Obama administration continued the trend after the gfc and the trump administration has also continued. It is now at its lowest.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

@this podcast

"I don't know if you guys have heard of him...Jesus Christ?"

I almost spit out my damn coffee, Zyphox.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

@M2Dave @CrimsonShadow
That was an excellent discussion.
Solid insight all around, knowledge in looking backwards to show how different things have become, and a refreshing break from how tense this debate has been. It's a breath of fresh air to hear everyone talking it out and be reminded we're all, in way more ways than not, on the same page.
Everyone should give it a spin.

 

[mrapchem]

The politics, the philosophy, and the pragmatics have already been explained to you a dozens times by someone who has lived in western Europe and the United States.

In order to pay for social programs such as universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and reparations that you, Crimson, and MrApchem have been advocating, taxes must be increased on the wealthy as well as the middle class just like in all socially democratic societies in western Europe. I have statistically and anecdotally proven that the median household income is significantly higher in the United States than all socially democratic countries except Luxembourg, which is a pseudo country with a population of half a million people. One may make the argument that Europeans earn less money because of high taxes that pay for the aforementioned social programs. The reality is that the vast majority of Americans receive health insurance from their employer if they work full time. In fact, the government mandates that the employer offer health insurance to a full-time employee. Community colleges are a cheaper alternative to highly expensive universities. I concede that the healthcare and educational system have flaws, but I am not convinced that socialism is the solution. Neither are most Americans, which brings me to the following point.

Politics aside, capitalism values individuality over collectivism. This mentality is deeply embedded in American mentality and culture. A politician like Bernie Sanders would have the arduous task of convincing millions of Americans of all races, ethnicities, and backgrounds to pay twice as much in taxes in order to pay for social programs that would largely benefit the poor. For this reason, Bernie Sanders has won very liberal states but not moderate and conservatives states. Joe Biden, who is perceived to be a moderate Democrat, has won those states. I am not being a partisan. I am merely informing you of the pragmatics of the system that you proposing. Americans understand that the system has flaws, but they are not yet ready to throw in the towel and open the door for socialism, at least not currently.

If I had to come to an impartial conclusion, I would state that Americans have enjoyed the most luxurious lifestyle in human history. While social safety nets obviously exist, healthcare and secondary education are very costly. They are free in Europe because of high taxes. The average western and northern European lives very well albeit not as well as the average American.

By the way, REO, Slips, Tom, Zyphox, and I recorded a podcast on cancel culture in the fighting game community. We invited Crimson to make certain that all perspectives are represented. If you have some time to spare, please listen and comment.

Firstly, I and many other Americans would gladly have our taxes doubled if it meant that we didn't need to pay insurance companies co-pays, premiums or anything of the sort anymore and if it meant that we could get any kind of necessary healthcare services that we needed for free at the point of service, without worrying about if we were covered or not. I'll take that trade all day long. The average American spends $12,000 a year on insurance - if America got rid of that cost, even tripling peoples' taxes would allow them to keep more of their money than having to pay Blue Cross/Blue Shield for partial/limited coverage.

Secondly, many people are indeed insured through their employer, but guess what? America is now in the middle of a pandemic and economic recession in which there are now record numbers of people filing for unemployment. This now means that those great insurance plans that their job provided are gone now. Under a single-payer system, peoples' healthcare coverage would not be tied to their jobs at all and they'd be able to get medical help when they need it regardless of their employment status - and there would be no private, for-profit insurance companies collecting their money in exchange for partial coverage.

Insurance companies don't have to go out of business or be abolished - they can cover people for elective procedures like cosmetic surgeries and other instances. They simply shouldn't stand in the middle of people and their ability to get essential healthcare services.

About Americans and our luxurious lifestyle - what you say is true for a large swath of wealthy Americans. However, for the 50% of the country that makes $30,000 a year and less, it is not quite the case for everyone.

Not to mention, America attained its much of its wealth through bloodshed, imperialism and war and the overwhelming majority of individual wealth is inherited from predecessors, many of whom attained their wealth in unscrupulous ways.

Americans are indeed opposed to high taxes, but I would make the case that if they knew they were obtaining things like universal healthcare, free college and better schools in exchange for some higher taxes, the overwhelming majority of them would make that trade. Especially now.

 

[mrapchem]

But about the podcast, I pretty much am in agreement with everything that Crimson, REO, Zyphox and Tom had to say about cancel culture. Cancel culture is as old as human history, but with the advent of social media, the phenomenon has a name now. It exists primarily as a response to a deficiency in our justice system - there are so many cases of black people killed by police that would have never gained national attention if not for social media and those that participate in cancel culture.

Needless to say, I am a proponent of cancel culture as a tool to advance anti-racism and all oppose other forms of depravity, including but not limited to abuse, sexism, bigotry, sexual harassment, homo/transphobia and the like. Can cancel culture be a bit too zealous at times? Sure it can. However to pretend that it functions as more of a witch-hunt fest than than a righteous social justice tool is completely disingenuous.

Cancel culture is also a response to unchecked debauchery - if someone doesn't want to find themselves a victim of it, then all they need to do is make sure that they are a decent person that treats everyone with dignity and respect both in word and deed. Or at the very least, they can pretend to be - for their own self-preservation.

Obviously, there needs to be some kind of standard that is applied so that cancel culture does not degenerate into legitimate witch-hunts. It should require evidence and proof whenever possible, it should utilize contextual judgement when assessing the parties in question and it should allow for a repentant offender to successfully reintegrate into online society and live their lives peacefully.

But under no circumstances does cancel culture need to go away or relent just because it makes people uncomfortable - the plurality of people that oppose it are people that want to be able to say whatever they wish in an inconsequential fashion, no matter what it is. And they often claim that they want everyone else to be able to do the same - until they encounter someone that says something that they don't like. At that point, they abandon their 'unlimited free-speech' principles and turn into the same snowflakes that they claim to despise.

 

[NaCl man]

 

[ItsYaBoi]

But about the podcast, I pretty much am in agreement with everything that Crimson, REO, Zyphox and Tom had to say about cancel culture. Cancel culture is as old as human history, but with the advent of social media, the phenomenon has a name now. It exists primarily as a response to a deficiency in our justice system - there are so many cases of black people killed by police that would have never gained national attention if not for social media and those that participate in cancel culture.

Needless to say, I am a proponent of cancel culture as a tool to advance anti-racism and all oppose other forms of depravity, including but not limited to abuse, sexism, bigotry, sexual harassment, homo/transphobia and the like. Can cancel culture be a bit too zealous at times? Sure it can. However to pretend that it functions as more of a witch-hunt fest than than a righteous social justice tool is completely disingenuous.

Cancel culture is also a response to unchecked debauchery - if someone doesn't want to find themselves a victim of it, then all they need to do is make sure that they are a decent person that treats everyone with dignity and respect both in word and deed. Or at the very least, they can pretend to be - for their own self-preservation.

Obviously, there needs to be some kind of standard that is applied so that cancel culture does not degenerate into legitimate witch-hunts. It should require evidence and proof whenever possible, it should utilize contextual judgement when assessing the parties in question and it should allow for a repentant offender to successfully reintegrate into online society and live their lives peacefully.

But under no circumstances does cancel culture need to go away or relent just because it makes people uncomfortable - the plurality of people that oppose it are people that want to be able to say whatever they wish in an inconsequential fashion, no matter what it is. And they often claim that they want everyone else to be able to do the same - until they encounter someone that says something that they don't like. At that point, they abandon their 'unlimited free-speech' principles and turn into the same snowflakes that they claim to despise.

This is ESSENTIAL reading for those crying about cancel culture. Unfortunately I know that some will ignore it, but this is one of the best posts ITT.

 

[M2Dave]

Firstly, I and many other Americans would gladly have our taxes doubled if it meant that we didn't need to pay insurance companies co-pays, premiums or anything of the sort anymore and if it meant that we could get any kind of necessary healthcare services that we needed for free at the point of service, without worrying about if we were covered or not. I'll take that trade all day long. The average American spends $12,000 a year on insurance - if America got rid of that cost, even tripling peoples' taxes would allow them to keep more of their money than having to pay Blue Cross/Blue Shield for partial/limited coverage.

Secondly, many people are indeed insured through their employer, but guess what? America is now in the middle of a pandemic and economic recession in which there are now record numbers of people filing for unemployment. This now means that those great insurance plans that their job provided are gone now. Under a single-payer system, peoples' healthcare coverage would not be tied to their jobs at all and they'd be able to get medical help when they need it regardless of their employment status - and there would be no private, for-profit insurance companies collecting their money in exchange for partial coverage.

Insurance companies don't have to go out of business or be abolished - they can cover people for elective procedures like cosmetic surgeries and other instances. They simply shouldn't stand in the middle of people and their ability to get essential healthcare services.

About Americans and our luxurious lifestyle - what you say is true for a large swath of wealthy Americans. However, for the 50% of the country that makes $30,000 a year and less, it is not quite the case for everyone.

Not to mention, America attained its much of its wealth through bloodshed, imperialism and war and the overwhelming majority of individual wealth is inherited from predecessors, many of whom attained their wealth in unscrupulous ways.

Americans are indeed opposed to high taxes, but I would make the case that if they knew they were obtaining things like universal healthcare, free college and better schools in exchange for some higher taxes, the overwhelming majority of them would make that trade. Especially now.

When you focus on the high healthcare costs and how they affect Americans as a whole, I empathize with your argument although you and I may disagree on the solution. When you engage in divisive rhetoric by playing identity politics, you start losing me.

The only interjection that I would like to make is on Americans who make $30,000 a year or less. Comparatively, they still live a more dignified life than most people in other countries.

But under no circumstances does cancel culture need to go away or relent just because it makes people uncomfortable...

The fact that you make this statement so nonchalantly astonishes me. Cancel culture partially exists because certain people feel "uncomfortable" by someone else's free speech so they pursue your livelihood, your expulsion of a community, and your reputation. The movement has become so extreme leading to the creation of "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate", which was signed by more than a hundred people, almost all of whom are liberals. In fact, some of the individuals who signed the letter are now being canceled. Of course. LOL.

I agree with classical liberal philosophy that states "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", and trust me when I say that this thread has a multitude of loony, far-left thoughts, ideas, and opinions. Liberalism has changed as liberals flirt with authoritarian principles, which is precisely what cancel culture is.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

When you focus on the high healthcare costs and how they affect Americans as a whole, I empathize with your argument although you and I may disagree on the solution. When you engage in divisive rhetoric by playing identity politics, you start losing me.

The only interjection that I would like to make is on Americans who make $30,000 a year or less. Comparatively, they still live a more dignified life than most people in other countries.



The fact that you make this statement so nonchalantly astonishes me. Cancel culture partially exists because certain people feel "uncomfortable" by someone else's free speech so they pursue your livelihood, your expulsion of a community, and your reputation. The movement has become so extreme leading to the creation of "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate", which was signed by more than a hundred people, almost all of whom are liberals. In fact, some of the individuals who signed the letter are now being canceled. Of course. LOL.

I agree with classical liberal philosophy that states "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", and trust me when I say that this thread has a multitude of loony, far-left thoughts, ideas, and opinions. Liberalism has changed as liberals flirt with authoritarian principles, which is precisely what cancel culture is.

Colin Kapernick was not allowed to kneel at a football game to peacefully protest for others’ lives and the president of the United States recommended that anyone be fired who does, backed by FOX news and Republican pundits.

Tell me again who is flirting with authoritarianism. I’m not sure you truly understand what that word means.

Stop trying to make this a ‘liberal’ Vs. conservative thing — it’s not.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

I agree with classical liberal philosophy that states "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", and trust me when I say that this thread has a multitude of loony, far-left thoughts, ideas, and opinions. Liberalism has changed as liberals flirt with authoritarian principles, which is precisely what cancel culture is.

Still waiting to hear more logic about how the left is worse than the right, Dave. And as I've said a dozen and a half times, if my ideas and those like mine are far-left and loony, I would genuinely like to hear the alternative, or how the past decades of neo-conservative ideology and political gridlock have served us any better. Because the right has literally spawned a would-be authoritarian leader that we are all currently suffering under the thumb of, along with a Senate that's keeping him safe enough to get them all rich. Cancel culture is not the problem, nor could it ever become authoritarian in scope or size; it's too fringe of an idea, and there are too many people in power with money to lose to let it go that far, akin to Bernie Sanders' blunt force determination to make the ultra-wealthy pay what they owe in taxes. The problem is that the political and societal narrative in this country has, as you've said before, become a giant vortex of identity politics. Too many people believe that all of our problems are right vs left of red vs blue, when they're more often matters of human decency vs "this can't affect me, so I don't care." Like not wearing a mask because you don't believe in Covid, or not believing how difficult life is for black and brown people in America because you only have numbers and statistics to go by rather than personal experience. And the source of all this perspective shifting was, on paper and in practice, a result of the aforementioned Republican/Conservative agenda cooked up by Karl Rove, Roger Ailes and the like in the early 2000's. Carpetbomb the Middle East, blame Saddam Hussein so you can overrun Iraq to build pipelines and condemn anyone who speaks out against it from behind the Spectre of 9/11. Run a homophobic Presidential campaign, blame the gays for being an aberration against God. Inflate the economy and outsource countless jobs to India and China, blame whoever's in charge later when the bubble pops. Create the vacuum in which anything you do wrong can be made the fault of your opposition, so the opposition can't possibly make themselves look the wiser no matter what you do. These are ALL strategies and practices that came...wait for it... from the right.
The rest of society is only now in 2020 beginning to find even remotely reliable ways to combat this decades-long battle of rhetorical attrition, and being fought tooth and nail every step of the way by people who see the desire for accountability and responsibility as the desire for combat.
You see me calling for Champ and Z and Mr. Wizard's heads, and you only see a "liberal ideologue" who wants to burn the witches. You don't see the father of a young girl and former victim of blatant racist ideology, who's only after these people because they're REPEAT offenders who've shown no desire or intent to change, who's grown sick to his guts of a lifetime of seeing this engine chug forward with no one trying to keep it in check, and who absolutely agrees with you and the rest of the pod that this culture should not be weaponized to come after people for things as obscure as years-old message board posts or singular acts of stupidity. But when literally nothing else as worked and society has been left no other viable options, I implore you or anyone else, AGAIN, to tell me what the alternative is. Or what, if anything, the left has done in America that's as permanently damaging as the track record of the right. Or what's "loony" about wanting there to be ANY measure of tangible accountability for what society has become in its wake.

Everyone wants to be mad it's gotten to this point; but no one seems to have any other answers, especially when it comes to the subject of the right laying the groundwork for all of this, and people like me becoming the metaphorical dogs who are finally biting after being kicked their entire lives.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Coronavirus is a perfect example of why the public has taken things into its own hands.

People will say, "Just present the facts, make rational arguments, let the government handle it, don't be too controversial, etc." Meanwhile, literally thousands of people are dying every week in the US. Thousands of people, per week. We almost hit a thousand deaths on one day on Tuesday.

The white house has shown that they don't care much about it, states are failing to take control and keep their citizens safe, and governments are attempting to reopen schools in the middle of both rising cases and rising deaths, putting teachers and professors, students, and the students' parents and families at risk.

The reason this happens is that politicians do not feel accountable for their actions.

And what's going to stop this? Clearly staying quiet is not the answer. So eventually people will get angry enough to make a huge scene, protest, and start holding people accountable for the lives lost. And when they do, we'll hear complaints that it's 'anarchy', 'cancel culture', 'Twitter mob' and all these kinds of things. But there will be NO MENTION of the months worth of inaction and the 150,000 lives lost that led up to it.

It's hypocrisy at the highest level. And it is costing lives. Mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, grandmothers, aunts, loved ones. SylverRye lost his dad over this. If you're going to tell me not to speak out or be angry, I will tell you where to go. Period.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

Coronavirus is a perfect example of why the public has taken things into its own hands.

People will say, "Just present the facts, make rational arguments, let the government handle it, don't be too controversial, etc." Meanwhile, literally thousands of people are dying every week in the US. Thousands of people, per week. We almost hit a thousand deaths on one day on Tuesday.

The white house has shown that they don't care much about it, states are failing to take control and keep their citizens safe, and governments are attempting to reopen schools in the middle of both rising and deaths, putting teachers and professors, students, and the students parents and families at risk.

The reason this happens is that politicians do not feel accountable for their actions.

And what's going to stop this? Clearly staying quiet is not the answer. So eventually people will get angry enough to make a huge scene, protest, and start holding people accountable for the lives lost. And when they do, we'll hear complaints that it's 'anarchy', 'cancel culture', 'Twitter mob' and all these kinds of things. But there will be NO MENTION of the months worth of inaction and the 150,000 lives lost that led up to it.

It's hypocrisy at the highest level. And it is costing lives. Mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, grandmothers, aunts, loved ones. SylverRye lost his dad over this. If you're going to tell me not to speak out or be angry, I will tell you where to go. Period.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
I live with my retired, not in the best health Poppa. My brothers are nurses, my mother is a triage social worker, my stepdad has a transplanted liver and works in food bank, and I work in a high volume deli. We are all at high risk on a daily basis. Yet I've lost count of how many ravings and banters we've all heard about the left and the Dems blowing this up as a hoax to restrict freedom and persecute Trump in our respective jobs. It's fucking nauseating, and I'm tired of it. Let those same people keep that energy if they or their loved ones end up ventilated and coughing up their own lungs for refusing to listen to reason. Same as I'm sure there are plenty of people who've gone to bat for people like Mike Z and DMS who'd have a vastly different opinion if it was THEIR daughter or niece or sister whose inbox or hotel room they'd been in.

Accountability, people. If we had it, we wouldn't have an administration and party trying to kill the ACA in the middle of a pandemic, while in ten years they have comprised NO SOLUTION to replace it with.
Just like we have people telling me I'm too radical and too dramatic in the arguments I'm making, in spite of keeping open ears and eyes all the way throughout and encouraging anyone with a better idea to speak on it, but I have heard ZERO alternatives.

Sheeeeeeit, maybe I should start a damn podcast.
I know a couple of big enough names with learned minds and eloquent voices that I'm sure would be warm to helping me get me the views to become relevant, and I would love to vent some of this frustration in the faces of the people who'd love to see it fail and keep things accountability-free.
But that's another dream for another day.

 

[jokey77]

Obviously, there needs to be some kind of standard that is applied so that cancel culture does not degenerate into legitimate witch-hunts. It should require evidence and proof whenever possible, it should utilize contextual judgement when assessing the parties in question and it should allow for a repentant offender to successfully reintegrate into online society and live their lives peacefully.

This brings up the crucial point, thank you very much!

You are implying that there actually was "some kind of standard". Besides you are implying that an online mob was capable of "contextual judgement".

This is propably where we disagree. - However I'd be grateful if you would further ellaborate your point of view:

1. What exact standard are you talking about?
2. How do you stop an online mob that doesn't meet said standards and doesn't judge in a "contextual" way?

My impression is that "cancel culture" certainly approves of individual participants overshooting the mark. The only vague standard is that with which a diffuse mass identifies itself out of emotion. I'd even say that it is systemic for non-organized mobs, that there is no common tangible standard and no differentiated contextual judgement.

 

[Juggs]

I genuinely love how this thread evolved. We don’t ever really get to discuss politics on TYM because most people cannot handle it.

My question is, should we rename the thread, or should we create a new thread for overall general political discussion? I think most have demonstrated ITT the capacity to discuss these topics with at least some civility.

 

[MrArcher15]

I genuinely love how this thread evolved. We don’t ever really get to discuss politics on TYM because most people cannot handle it.

My question is, should we rename the thread, or should we create a new thread for overall general political discussion? I think most have demonstrated ITT the capacity to discuss these topics with at least some civility.

I mean the issue to me is it started with f champ then went to mike z then somehow landed on politics. I don’t mind if there’s a politics thread but I don’t particularly like a thread turning into something it shouldn’t be.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

This brings up the crucial point, thank you very much!

You are implying that there actually was "some kind of standard". Besides you are implying that an online mob was capable of "contextual judgement".

This is propably where we disagree. - However I'd be grateful if you would further ellaborate your point of view:

1. What exact standard are you talking about?
2. How do you stop an online mob that doesn't meet said standards and doesn't judge in a "contextual" way?

My impression is that "cancel culture" certainly approves of individual participants overshooting the mark. The only vague standard is that with which a diffuse mass identifies itself out of emotion. I'd even say that it is systemic for non-organized mobs, that there is no common tangible standard and no differentiated contextual judgement.

I don't believe he's saying there's already been a standard; he's saying that the tangible standard and its necessary contextual judgement needs to be set now, while the debate is still hot enough to malleate into something beneficial for the long term.

A huge misunderstanding that should be clarified while doing so: not everyone who supports this kind of culture or mindset does so solely based solely off of emotion or mob mentality. Some of us, as myself and Crimson and others have alluded to repeatedly, do so out of a necessity for accountability and personal responsibility that extends beyond just what the average person sees and hears every day.
Also, it's a vague standard in itself to believe that the majority of these supporters approve of "overshooting the mark." I agreed almost uniformly with everything said in that podcast about how ridiculous it would be for people to be cast into the fire over simple absurdities from a different time. What I do NOT support is a society where it's okay for people to continue their patterns of corrupt and immoral behavior without retribution because of some idealistic need to defend free speech, as though the same people who want accountability would be willing to revoke the First Amendment to get it.
The same argument happens over guns, when people who want sane and long overdue gun control are thrown under the bus and accused of wanting to revoke the Second Amendment. It's not the same thing.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

I mean the issue to me is it started with f champ then went to mike z then somehow landed on politics. I don’t mind if there’s a politics thread but I don’t particularly like a thread turning into something it shouldn’t be.

The politics and societal dissonance are the root of the problem. Can't hope to change things unless you address the underlying causes.

I genuinely love how this thread evolved. We don’t ever really get to discuss politics on TYM because most people cannot handle it.

Could not agree more. This has been the most substantial and intelligent debate over ANY of this sort of stuff I've been part of in years. I hope there's more to come.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I genuinely love how this thread evolved. We don’t ever really get to discuss politics on TYM because most people cannot handle it.

My question is, should we rename the thread, or should we create a new thread for overall general political discussion? I think most have demonstrated ITT the capacity to discuss these topics with at least some civility.

I think the goal is to keep it from becoming 100% political -- because at that point the humanity gets lost.

I really feel that these aren’t truly political issues to begin with; and that although politics will inevitably become intertwined with them to some degree, the more that we can just focus on the basic issues, the better.

I'd rather be discussing facts and figures than going back and forth over what some pundit on "the Left or the Right" got paid to say on whatever issue. Which is why I've been working on getting Dave (and a couple others) away from prefabricated meda-ready talking points, and more towards actually reading the history and studying the data.

Imo, the fact that this thread is rooted in things that actually happened in our community helps keep it grounded.. So hopefully that’s something we can keep front and center as we discuss this stuff.