What's new

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

Darth-Nero

Come Thunder! Come Lightning!
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 it's best to leave it as it is, Big reason the discussion is civilized is because it's been held under the anti-racism main thread topic. It already created an inhospitable environment for every neo-nazi lurking around here, whom would otherwise jump on a "general political discussion" thread to Aids it up.
 
The politics and societal dissonance are the root of the problem. Can't hope to change things unless you address the underlying causes.


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.
How is making fun of death and getting backlash for that political? lmao
 
Last edited:

Lt. Boxy Angelman

WHEN IS GOD
I think it's best to leave it as it is, Big reason the discussion is civilized is because it's been held under the anti-racism main thread topic. It already created an inhospitable environment for every neo-nazi lurking around here, whom would otherwise jump on a "general political discussion" thread to Aids it up.
I vote this. Best to take it topic by topic and give things less room to derail and less room for the trolls to breathe in.

How is making fun of death and getting backlash for that political? Or racism? lmao
... I'm confused as to what you're what you're referring to, but what I mean is in reference to the entire FGC, which is in itself a microcosm of society at large, and which the NRS scene is a very big part of. Unless you're talking about MK itself, in which case I'd say A. That's why it's in the Off-Topic forum, and B. Mortal Kombat is one of the most politically relevant video games ever made. MK1, specifically Sub-Zero's Spine Rip Fatality, was the catalyst that gave rise to the ESRB and the long debate across the 90's over violent content in video games.
 

NaCl man

Welcome to Akihabara
It's been a good thread so far which i have found very interesting. Not being American i have learnt quite a lot and most of the discussions have been very civil. The willingness to share opinions openly without bs trolling has been good.

In saying that to make a thread based souly on political views might have the opposite effect.

Thanks to everyone in here for helping me learn more about the issues at hand. It has given me the motivation to learn about these issues in my own time and understand more what is happening in the world.
 
I vote this. Best to take it topic by topic and give things less room to derail and less room for the trolls to breathe in.



... I'm confused as to what you're what you're referring to, but what I mean is in reference to the entire FGC, which is in itself a microcosm of society at large, and which the NRS scene is a very big part of. Unless you're talking about MK itself, in which case I'd say A. That's why it's in the Off-Topic forum, and B. Mortal Kombat is one of the most politically relevant video games ever made. MK1, specifically Sub-Zero's Spine Rip Fatality, was the catalyst that gave rise to the ESRB and the long debate across the 90's over violent content in video games.
This is precisely my point. You don’t know what I’m talking about because the thread went in a different direction. It was originally about fchamp and a joke he made about black lives matter, people then eventually brought up mike z because he made a joke about George Floyd’s death. Both of them got backlash, that’s what the thread was initially about as you can see by the title
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

WHEN IS GOD
This is precisely my point. You don’t know what I’m talking about because the thread went in a different direction. It was originally about fchamp and a joke he made about black lives matter, people then eventually brought up mike z because he made a joke about George Floyd’s death. Both of them got backlash, that’s what the thread was initially about as you can see by the title
Mike Z got brought up for his bizarre and uncomfortable exchange with Bunny, on top of the George Floyd jokes. I can read, bud. MY point is answering your question as to what all of this has to do with this conversation delving into the political, which is because it all bleeds together into the bigger picture of society allowing people to feel comfortable enough to say awful shit as they've said without fear of retribution, a practice we've seen reach a fever pitch in America with the people currently in charge.
 
Mike Z got brought up for his bizarre and uncomfortable exchange with Bunny, on top of the George Floyd jokes. I can read, bud. MY point is answering your question as to what all of this has to do with this conversation delving into the political, which is because it all bleeds together into the bigger picture of society allowing people to feel comfortable enough to say awful shit as they've said without fear of retribution, a practice we've seen reach a fever pitch in America with the people currently in charge.
Lmao relax bro. It doesn’t bleed together. People make it bleed together when it shouldn’t. Yes I agree that there’s a societal issue with certain people actually thinking that it’s ok to do those things, or that they can get away with that but that shouldn’t be related to politics. As I said way earlier in the thread, in any other workplace if you have a repeated history of making racist comments or making female coworkers uncomfortable and get reported, you get reprimanded or fired it’s really that simple. Media, and some people in this thread are trying to make it a political thing when it shouldn’t be.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

WHEN IS GOD
Lmao relax bro. It doesn’t bleed together. People make it bleed together when it shouldn’t. Yes I agree that there’s a societal issue with certain people actually thinking that it’s ok to do those things, or that they can get away with that but that shouldn’t be related to politics. As I said way earlier in the thread, in any other workplace if you have a repeated history of making racist comments or making female coworkers uncomfortable and get reported, you get reprimanded or fired it’s really that simple. Media, and some people in this thread are trying to make it a political thing when it shouldn’t be.
And you really don't think that has anything to do with the influence of politics, and people are just making it appear that way? In America? In the age of the "Grab them by the p&#+y" President and the most racial-tension-charged environment we've been in since the 60's? Come on, man. Every decade of society for a good long while has been shaped around the people on top of the politics pyramid, now even more than ever. I agree that the media blows shit out of proportion, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't really there beneath it.
 
And you really don't think that has anything to do with the influence of politics, and people are just making it appear that way? In America? In the age of the "Grab them by the p&#+y" President and the most racial-tension-charged environment we've been in since the 60's? Come on, man. Every decade of society for a good long while has been shaped around the people on top of the politics pyramid, now even more than ever. I agree that the media blows shit out of proportion, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't really there beneath it.
i do really believe politics has no influence over that cuz no matter who is in office the end result of what happened to mike z and fchamp would be the same. People have done things like those two regardless of who's in office, whether we know about it or not and the end result has been the same, either reprimanded or fired. Also because neither of these people got really punished until they became repeat offenders, as is the case in the past when everyone does this. It really isn't political bro. At the end of the day when you do things that can affect a company, brand etc they will get rid of you.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

WHEN IS GOD
i do really believe politics has no influence over that cuz no matter who is in office the end result of what happened to mike z and fchamp would be the same. People have done things like those two regardless of who's in office, whether we know about it or not and the end result has been the same, either reprimanded or fired. Also because neither of these people got really punished until they became repeat offenders, as is the case in the past when everyone does this. It really isn't political bro. At the end of the day when you do things that can affect a company, brand etc they will get rid of you.
Y'know, that's fair. It would still be a thing even if there were no politics at all.
You get the points. Can't argue the validity one bit.
 

Juggs

Lose without excuses
Lead Moderator
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.
I mean that’s fine if that’s what you want, but that isn’t what has happened. It has 100% become a mostly political discussion, which is fine. The original topic is very rarely brought up. And even when it is, it very quickly devolves into a political discussion or pivots completely to something else

Also, political discussions aren’t exclusive to just “going back and forth over what some pundit on ‘the Left‘ or ‘the Right’ got paid to say on whatever issue“. I’m not at all interested in that as I’m sure most people aren’t as well, so I’m not sure why you framed it that way.

I think we can be honest about what is actually happening in this thread where no one has even remotely made an attempt to change. Which, for the record, I’m completely fine with. But pretending that’s not what has happened in this thread is disingenuous to say the least, and that’s me being as charitable as possible.

So, we either can go back to speaking specifically about the topic this thread was made about, or we can change the title. And if people want to do the former, we can make a new thread for people who want to continue the political discussions. I don’t see how that is at all unreasonable to suggest. Also, to be clear, when I say change the title, I mean just add a more accurate description. Like keeping most of the original title but adding something like “and other political discussions” or something to that effect. Obviously not the perfect title but just an example of what I’m talking about.
 
I mean that’s fine if that’s what you want, but that isn’t what has happened. It has 100% become a mostly political discussion, which is fine. The original topic is very rarely brought up. And even when it is, it very quickly devolves into a political discussion or pivots completely to something else

Also, political discussions aren’t exclusive to just “going back and forth over what some pundit on ‘the Left‘ or ‘the Right’ got paid to say on whatever issue“. I’m not at all interested in that as I’m sure most people aren’t as well, so I’m not sure why you framed it that way.

I think we can be honest about what is actually happening in this thread where no one has even remotely made an attempt to change. Which, for the record, I’m completely fine with. But pretending that’s not what has happened in this thread is disingenuous to say the least, and that’s me being as charitable as possible.

So, we either can go back to speaking specifically about the topic this thread was made about, or we can change the title. And if people want to do the former, we can make a new thread for people who want to continue the political discussions. I don’t see how that is at all unreasonable to suggest. Also, to be clear, when I say change the title, I mean just add a more accurate description. Like keeping most of the original title but adding something like “and other political discussions” or something to that effect. Obviously not the perfect title but just an example of what I’m talking about.
let the record show that i tried to go back haha
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

WHEN IS GOD
Idea :D
How about:
A TYM City Hall thread.

A decidedly specific political/worldly thread, in which all news of the day can be posted, discussed, debated, defended, debunked, so forth and so on. A thread one enters knowing they're walking into the kind of conversation that this one has evolved into, but one where we can lay all the affairs of the day in one place, and potentially learn many things from as we have learned here.

This has been my idea :D .
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
I mean that’s fine if that’s what you want, but that isn’t what has happened. It has 100% become a mostly political discussion, which is fine. The original topic is very rarely brought up. And even when it is, it very quickly devolves into a political discussion or pivots completely to something else

Also, political discussions aren’t exclusive to just “going back and forth over what some pundit on ‘the Left‘ or ‘the Right’ got paid to say on whatever issue“. I’m not at all interested in that as I’m sure most people aren’t as well, so I’m not sure why you framed it that way.

I think we can be honest about what is actually happening in this thread where no one has even remotely made an attempt to change. Which, for the record, I’m completely fine with. But pretending that’s not what has happened in this thread is disingenuous to say the least, and that’s me being as charitable as possible.

So, we either can go back to speaking specifically about the topic this thread was made about, or we can change the title. And if people want to do the former, we can make a new thread for people who want to continue the political discussions. I don’t see how that is at all unreasonable to suggest. Also, to be clear, when I say change the title, I mean just add a more accurate description. Like keeping most of the original title but adding something like “and other political discussions” or something to that effect. Obviously not the perfect title but just an example of what I’m talking about.
Any discussion of social issues will probably involve some politics, but I'm pretty strongly against trying to force it to be political. A lot of what we're talking about is just human rights and the implications of prejudice in society. That's universal enough to not have to be hogtied to political views.

Once you explicitly brand it "politics" you open the door to a whole other type of discussion, which is the type that never goes well.

So it's cool to change the title, but I think "Racism and Equality in the FGC and America" or something like that would actually fit the tone of the discussion a lot more. And it seems like a few other people are in agreement.
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
P.S. as an example of that, our podcast was about an hour and a half of discussing the fairness issues with barely any politics at all, and it think it was really productive:

 

mrapchem

Noob
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.
The examples that you listed earlier in the thread along with what you're listing now are absolutely not what I'm referring to when I and others in this thread speak of cancel culture.

You're talking about punishing dissenting opinions; I'm talking about collectively refusing to support people like FChamp, R. Kelly and others that engage in racist, abusive and other depraved behaviors. When people say or do racist/sexist/homophobic/abusive things, there are consequences that should rightly follow that extend beyond the limits of the legal system.

Don Imus couldn't be arrested for calling a group of Black female college athletes "nappy-headed hoes", but he damn sure could be cancelled for doing so.




Also, you really need to stop hyper-focusing on liberals - cancel culture was invented and pioneered by right-wing forces in this country nearly from its inception.

Let's not forget that Confederates literally cancelled their collective citizenship from America and actively fought against it all over the idea that Black people were inherently inferior, which was also the original example of identity politics.

The descendants of these Confederates went on to cancel the entire Democratic Party, labeling themselves "Dixiecrats" and then joined the Republican Party as a result of Black people obtaining civil rights.

Tomi Lahren was cancelled by a large number of her conservative audience after she dared to espouse the idea that government shouldn't be large enough to tell her what to do with her body in reference to abortion. Trump himself has used Twitter in order to get his loyal band of sycophants to cancel Fox News numerous times any time one of its segments is critical of him or pushes back against his falsehoods. And then, of course, you have racist NFL and NASCAR fans that cancel their sports program either because of players kneeling or because they cannot fly the Confederate Flag at the events.

Cancel-culture is alive and well on the Right and it is wholly disingenuous of anyone to pretend that it isn't. Anyone who steps out of far-right collective group-think dogma gets immediately and viciously cancelled.




But back to the original topic - nobody in this thread is calling for people with unpopular opinions to be cancelled simply by virtue of daring to be different; and I personally do not stand for that because dissent is an essential component of the advancement of democracy.

No, we advocate for the cancellation of anyone that espouses opinions that degrade groups of people based on the aforementioned distinctions.

We don't care if a person has a counter-cultural point of view, as long as it preserves everyone's inherent dignity - especially Black, Brown, LGTBQ, atheist and other marginalized peoples' dignity, as theirs has been under attack in this country the most.

The accountability-driven cancel culture that I and others are talking about is a direct response to these peoples' degradation at the hands of society; me, my wife, my friends, family and students all belong to these groups, and I'll be damned if I don't stand up for their right to be as free as the Constitution says they are supposed to be.

By fighting for these people, I am also fighting for everyone that isn't from a marginalized group also, because injustice anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere.
 
Last edited:
on a side note, please realize that even Mortal Kombat has recently switched from capitalism to socialism. At least in terms of meterbuilding.

mkx: same mechanics for everyone, but youre gonna be hella better off if your name is kung lao
mk 11: equal amount for everyone.

who didnt like it?
 

M2Dave

Zoning Master
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.
If you had read my posts in this thread, you would have known that I have criticized the NFL and President Trump on this issue. I disagree with Colin Kapernick's politics, but I support his right to free speech. You and many others have argued that "free speech does not mean freedom of consequences", but I even support freedom of consequences. No NFL owner has wanted to hire Colin Kapernick precisely because of the kneeling.

You're talking about punishing dissenting opinions...
... which is exactly what is happening sometimes. People have been fired for tweeting "All Lives Matter" and criticizing Black Lives Matter. The fact that 150 scholars, the vast majority of whom are liberals, have signed Harper's Letter proves that cancel culture is a radical and ochlocratic movement. It is contemporary McCarthyism.
 

Juggs

Lose without excuses
Lead Moderator
Any discussion of social issues will probably involve some politics, but I'm pretty strongly against trying to force it to be political. A lot of what we're talking about is just human rights and the implications of prejudice in society. That's universal enough to not have to be hogtied to political views.

Once you explicitly brand it "politics" you open the door to a whole other type of discussion, which is the type that never goes well.

So it's cool to change the title, but I think "Racism and Equality in the FGC and America" or something like that would actually fit the tone of the discussion a lot more. And it seems like a few other people are in agreement.
I’m not advocating forcing anything. But there’s probably a lot of people that would want to participate in the discussions going on in this thread but they have no idea they are taking place.

Also, as has been demonstrated in this thread, I think people are capable of discussing political issues without it becoming unreasonably hostile. And we can easily moderate it as needed, naturally. That’s all I’m saying. Because I think it’s important to have a thread like this where people can discuss these things that are happening in and outside of the FGC and the NRS community.
 

Marlow

Premium Supporter
Premium Supporter

ItsYaBoi

Noob
Plenty of people have wanted their signature removed from the first letter - as soon as it was revealed to be a vehicle for people like JK Rowling to peddle hate without being called out for it - as I posted about wayyyyyy back ITT. Some of them also didn't properly read the letter, they saw the signatures of esteemed colleagues and assumed it was for a good cause (as I said, it's a trojan horse to let people peddle hate unchecked).
 

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
Cancel culture is and isn't what Dave says it is. It isn't in the sense that people need to be held accountable and is in the sense that some people will use it to REEEE at something they disagree with.

Like anything else people will use it for their own means. Like BLM protests are peaceful and spread a necessary and important message. Except when they dont...

Most cops are here to protect and serve. Except when they aren't....

No organization or ideal that is comprised of human beings will ever be clear cut black and white.
 

M2Dave

Zoning Master
Plenty of people have wanted their signature removed from the first letter - as soon as it was revealed to be a vehicle for people like JK Rowling to peddle hate without being called out for it - as I posted about wayyyyyy back ITT. Some of them also didn't properly read the letter, they saw the signatures of esteemed colleagues and assumed it was for a good cause (as I said, it's a trojan horse to let people peddle hate unchecked).
Could you elaborate on the "hate"?
 

Marlow

Premium Supporter
Premium Supporter
but I even support freedom of consequences
How far does that go, though? If I'm someone with a very public platform, be it on a stage, streaming, media talk show, social network, whatever, and I use my platform to espouse racist or hateful ideas, why shouldn't I face some type of consequence for sharing and promoting that belief?

I'm all for positive debate and talking through issues, but at the same time aren't there certain points of view that shouldn't even be considered for debate? Like, why should someone who is black need to debate whether their life matters?