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

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

I took a shot every time Dave wrote “Marxist”, and I drowned in my own vomit 57 pages ago.

Now I feel bad.
I'm sorry I'm secretly a Communist spy and like half the cause of you puking your guts out.

Like I really thought being called a terrorist and jihadist (even though I'm Puerto Rican) through middle/high school would be the most ridiculous metaphorical Kick Me sign I'd ever have slapped on my back, but this months-long campaign to pain me as a Marxist is almost admirable for how determined he is to make it, in spite of it having absolutely no base in the reality of the TYM world or my actual In Real Life world.
Even though I could give two flying fucks about Communism or actual Full Metal Socialist style Socialism, and have said so and made real-life correlations to it on multiple occasions. Nor do I ever think they would be applicable or practical in America, which I have also said repeatedly, and to even entertain that idea that it could be done is a practice of fear-mongering absurdity of Sean Hannity proportions.

Now watch the only response I get be about name-dropping a Conservative instead of a Liberal.
Like I asked you almost three months ago: when you can show me a liberal/left-wing media pundit who has spat as much vitriol and absurdity onto the airwaves as Sean Hannity, I'll withdraw my point. MY point, which you don't get to turn on it's head and make me the bad guy for making. Ever.
This is a disgusting and unnecessary fight that ALL sides of the equation have a hand in making worse right now. That does NOTHING to change the fact that the red side has an enormous lead in the race of whose rhetoric, and actions both from them and their bases' rhetoric and beliefs, have done the most damage in the last 50-60 years and further back.
One thing does not equate to another.
Eating tofu doesn't make you a vegan.
Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken.
People can be more than one thing, or none of those things at all.
And if that fucks up your argument, then I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your argument sucks.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

Funny how when I leave no room for name-calling or whatabouting, I never get a response from any of the people who like to belittle me or talk shit about how America isn't inherently built in favor of well-to-do white people, or Trump isn't the fucking devil incarnate.

Here, how about a candid photograph of wealth redistribution to throw some fuel on the fire, now that I've beaten the "Box is a Marxist, so nothing he says matters" narrative to absolute and inescapable death. Maybe THIS will elicit a response.



Let's see how you spin that around.
Please.

 

[Marlow]

the biggest anti-smite

I'm not a fan of that game either.

 

[Marlow]

I also posted the following picture from the National Museum of African-American History and Culture, an institution financed by tax payers, a while ago. Unsurprisingly, the picture attributing characteristics such as individualism, science, and hard work to white people was ignored by every single liberal in this thread.

I don't think you understand what that photo is talking about.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I didn't take it as a criticism or offensive at all actually. I find the specificity of language to be quite useful so people are not confused lol. These aren't nonsense words. Big conversations require big words. I dunno what else to say. Major concepts are not nonsense.

"as if there were only two directions in a field as complex as politics "... I agree. But you still can't discount the value of those words. Politics aren't binary but the language is still important.

Right now they're pretty meaningless. For example, there's "Right" which in our society has traditionally meant things like 'family values', respect for the Constitution, military priorities, support for spending less/less debt and more conservative financial priorities, a base in religion, etc.

Then you have what is currently being described as the 'Right' or 'Conservative' in 2020, which is beholden to none of those priorities, is actively tying to dismantle some of them, and is not actually conservative at all.

So now it's gotten to the point where we're throwing around terms like 'right' and 'left' and 'liberal' and 'conservative' and 'radical' and 'socialist' when they don't actually mean anything, and when most of the public figures used to identify these categories don't actually FIT into the categories that are being assigned to them.

And furthermore, we then take people who might have one or two beliefs that are aligned with either "side" of this debate as they currently stand, and immediately shoehorn them into one "side" or the other, and use it to predefine all of their arguments as if these terms actually mean something.

Also, this notion that they are two equal teams allows us to account for any behavior, because when one 'side' is completely off their rocker and literally becoming complicit in the deaths of thousands of people daily, we write it off as "well both sides are equally valid" or "it's just politics" and any responsibility evaporates. It makes it impossible to separate individual behaviors that are abhorrent from the general policies that encompass them.

It's nonsense. It's a game that's being played with all of our time and money, and lives, and it runs counter to progress rather than encouraging progress.

So imo, if these terms are not actually going to mean something, than they're BS and we should stop using them. Period. Let's end the distraction and talk social issues, history and solutions instead.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Also I'd like to point out that pretty no matter where you look in history, attempting to split an entire country of people into two groups of people almost invariably ends in disaster. Doesn't mater where it's Sunni vs. Shia, Protestant vs. Catholic, Secular vs. Religious, or Left vs. Right, the outcome is always the same.

The truth is that human beings just don't fit into this narrow spectrum that we try to align them on. But that if we do force them into this kind of false dichotomy, they will fight and even kill each other over it readily. So it's not only pointless, it's also destructive and dangerous.

 

[M2Dave]

Also I'd like to point out that pretty no matter where you look in history, attempting to split an entire country of people into two groups of people almost invariably ends in disaster. Doesn't mater where it's Sunni vs. Shia, Protestant vs. Catholic, Secular vs. Religious, or Left vs. Right, the outcome is always the same.

You oppose political labels, yet you categorize people as racist and non-racist, sexist and non-sexist, pro-gay and anti-gay, etc. Do you not recognize this hypocrisy, particularly when you constantly like posts such as this one that claim that the modern Republican Party is "anti-minority, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay"? You seem to adore labeling people as long as the labels suit your agenda. I find your attempt to play the moderate in this thread comical as you have done nothing but agree with the most radical liberals.

I don't think you understand what that photo is talking about.

Explain to me what the photo is talking about. Hard work, future orientation, family, punctuality, politeness, and so on are aspects of success in any modern society. How are these aspects a part of whiteness? Telling a black child that he or she is embracing aspects of whiteness by working hard or planning for the future will "almost invariably end in disaster" to use Crimson's words. Unfortunately, lots of college students are taught this garbage in universities. A couple of months ago, I was taking a graduate education class from an accredited university that promoted the concept of white privilege. Any class that "teaches" such concepts ought to be regarded as propaganda and indoctrination, not education.

 

[KingHippo]

I think being "anti-gay" is as clear as opposing same-sex rights in almost every major cultural touchstone like adoption, being serviced, etc.

It's a label, sure, backed up by substantive action by the legislative bodies in power representing the party.

The things the Trump administration has tried to do to trans rights and immigrant rights are comically cruel.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

You oppose political labels, yet you categorize people as racist and non-racist, sexist and non-sexist, pro-gay and anti-gay, etc. Do you not recognize this hypocrisy, particularly when you constantly like posts such as this one that claim that the modern Republican Party is "anti-minority, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay"? You seem to adore labeling people as long as the labels suit your agenda. I find your attempt to play the moderate in this thread comical as you have done nothing but agree with the most radical liberals.

The Republican Party IS anti-minority, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay in its current form. George Bush won re-election in great part because he put the Defense Of Marriage Act on the ballot in eleven states.

Hypocrisy is more like when you try and win arguments by bashing people for using labels when you literally can't go a single post without condemning someone for what YOU believe them to be.

But what do I know? According to you, I'm a godless heathen Marxist, so my opinion means about as much as dirt.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

You oppose political labels, yet you categorize people as racist and non-racist, sexist and non-sexist, pro-gay and anti-gay, etc. Do you not recognize this hypocrisy, particularly when you constantly like posts such as this one that claim that the modern Republican Party is "anti-minority, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay"? You seem to adore labeling people as long as the labels suit your agenda. I find your attempt to play the moderate in this thread comical as you have done nothing but agree with the most radical liberals.



Explain to me what the photo is talking about. Hard work, future orientation, family, punctuality, politeness, and so on are aspects of success in any modern society. How are these aspects a part of whiteness? Telling a black child that he or she is embracing aspects of whiteness by working hard or planning for the future will "almost invariably end in disaster" to use Crimson's words. Unfortunately, lots of college students are taught this garbage in universities. A couple of months ago, I was taking a graduate education class from an accredited university that promoted the concept of white privilege. Any class that "teaches" such concepts ought to be regarded as propaganda and indoctrination, not education.

Racism is a behavior, not a political group or label. I point out racism behaviors, and I point out the history of schools of thought used to marginalize people in this country.

I don't have any concern for labeling people based on a political affiliation. I look at what they do and say, not which category they check on their voting form.

Also, you're claiming I said something that I did not say, and linked Karaokelove's post, who, as I'm sure we are all aware, is a different person than I am Thus, I think we can all see that your eagerness to group people together has reached a level so extreme that you can no longer tell individual posters apart. You've exemplified the fallacy with this kind of logic. It's time to hang it up.

 

[jokey77]

Frankly speaking, this thread shows excellently that the everyday culture of discussion is characterized by countless biases, circular conclusions and contradictions. - I take the liberty of writing down two of my observations (without claiming to be correct):

i. Right vs. Left: To my knowledge, this division goes back to Max Weber and his concept of "ideal types". No one is exclusively "right" or "left". On the whole, however, certain regularities can be identified which can be attributed to certain groups of people.

The central feature of right-wing politics, as I understand it, is that differences between people are more likely to be accepted (e.g. as the result of different decisions on a free market). In contrast, left-wing politics tends to try to make society as equal as possible (e.g. through inheritance taxes). Another example is that right-wing politics tends to preserve tradition and classic family images. It is not uncommon, however, that camp membership can only be explained historically ("the enemy of my enemy"), which is somewhat frightening.

Nevertheless, it is important to make such distinctions. Otherwise the world is too complex to discuss. We need patterns to remain capable of action. Whether right or wrong - it is inevitable anyway. However it becomes highly problematic as soon as an ideal-typical argumentation is "invalidated" by anecdotes. This is what happens a lot in everyday discussions (and in this thread).

Patterns are also a problem if you try to force other people into your own thinking patterns. This is how racism develops. But the same problem also exists when it comes to identifying political camps. The best example is when @kabelfritz explains his own world view on the previous page and, in reverse, says that all those who think differently must be "right".

So what I am trying to say: I think it's not about whether you think in patterns or not. Everyone does. It is only a matter of remaining open to new arguments and world views. And in this respect I am not happy about how this thread has developed.

ii. Systemic Social Problems: In Europe, system theory would probably be discussed in connection with Luhmann. In America, other authors (Parson?) are likely to be formative. My understanding of systems theory would be that it is society ('the system') that makes the individual act in a certain way (e.g. racist). In this respect it is absurd for leftists to denounce the individual (e.g. by means of cancel culture). Whoever argues systemically should actually argue against the system as a whole (and never against a certain person). But please correct me on this one.

---​

I also recall that in one of my first posts in this thread I warned that extreme rhetoric is highly dangerous and could lead to (violent) escalation. At that time, I explicitly took the position that especially the excessive left-wing language drives an escalation spiral. In the meantime the BLM movement has led to deaths and vandalism. I see a good part of the responsibility in the lurid leftist rhetoric. At the same time, you Americans have quite a problem with the completely excessive rhetoric of your president. - But arguing about who is worse in his choice of words would only fuel the escalation spiral. I plead for all discussants to choose a more cautious choice of words (or at least to consciously admit that you contribute to escalation).

 

[kabelfritz]

Patterns are also a problem if you try to force other people into your own thinking patterns. This is how racism develops. But the same problem also exists when it comes to identifying political camps. The best example is when @kabelfritz explains his own world view on the previous page and, in reverse, says that all those who think differently must be "right".

im not sure if you got that this was an example to show the absurdity of the right/left labeling?

ii. Systemic Social Problems: In Europe, system theory would probably be discussed in connection with Luhmann. In America, other authors (Parson?) are likely to be formative. My understanding of systems theory would be that it is society ('the system') that makes the individual act in a certain way (e.g. racist). In this respect it is absurd for leftists to denounce the individual (e.g. by means of cancel culture). Whoever argues systemically should actually argue against the system as a whole (and never against a certain person). But please correct me on this one.

well, in the end, the world is made of individuals with subjectivity, decisions and actions, so no systemic approach can ever tell the whole truth (even though luhmann would probably deny that). still i think many elements of current political systems would be deemed ridiculously dysfunctional and in need of structural change by luhmann, while parsons would still analyze a strong discrepancy between political system and environment, which leads the system actors to radical methods to sustain their structures.

but talking about science, i think the sad thing is that political discussion has moved beyond any science nowadays. how many of the people shouting out their opinions on- and offline are even aware of the existance of luhmann's and parsons theories, let alone thier content, and all the other knowledge that is out there and has been bought by blood in the course of human history? do we have to repeat that?

 

[KingHippo]

It is only a matter of remaining open to new arguments and world views. And in this respect I am not happy about how this thread has developed.

Not a single person posting in this thread is earnestly going to be swayed to think differently because no one is here to think differently. I would genuinely seek out a book or online articles or something of that nature to do that, not shitpost in a forum about Mortal Kombat.

If it actually happened, great, but I have as much faith in the intentions of posters in an FGC subforum as I do in the police to not murder people.

 

[Marlow]

A couple of months ago, I was taking a graduate education class from an accredited university that promoted the concept of white privilege. Any class that "teaches" such concepts ought to be regarded as propaganda and indoctrination, not education.

You don't think White Privilege exists?

 

[Marlow]

Explain to me what the photo is talking about. Hard work, future orientation, family, punctuality, politeness, and so on are aspects of success in any modern society. How are these aspects a part of whiteness?

The chart is looking as at aspects of culture that have been predominantly shaped and influenced by white people, so much so and for so long that it has now become the generally accepted standard or norm. Things like religion, how a family is structured, gender roles, manners/politeness, holidays, what attributes society should value. What kind of stories get told, tv shows, movies, what books get picked up by publishers and sold in stores. How schools and classrooms are organized.

The issues is that depending on which values/customs are considered "normal" can have a big impact on how people see themselves and others, and how people find themselves fitting into society. It can have some big ripple effects. One of my favorite examples of this is with computers and female programmers: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding

If you don't read the article: Women used to be much more heavily represented in the Computer Science field until sharply declining in the mid 1980's. A big reason for that is personal computers started being marketed as a toy for boys.

You can apply this same kind of thing to the FGC as well. Street Fighter was basically the first big fighting game, and so today a lot of what people in the FGC consider "normal" for 2D fighting games (back to block, how fireballs work, how meter works) is based off of what Street Fighter did.


BTW, they've since removed the chart, since it is kind of misleading. https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness

 

[Dankster Morgan]

That chart is accurate as a very very broad generalization, obviously not a one size fits all type of thing, but I would say it describes the norms of white culture in America.

 

[Marlow]

The central feature of right-wing politics, as I understand it, is that differences between people are more likely to be accepted (e.g. as the result of different decisions on a free market). In contrast, left-wing politics tends to try to make society as equal as possible (e.g. through inheritance taxes).

I don't know if I'd call that a "central feature' of right wing politics since there are a lot of issues, but in the case of your example I'd say that right wing politics are more grounded in the idea of individuals being completely responsible for all of their success or failure, regardless of equality of opportunity and things like, while in contrast left-wing politics focuses more on the society around the individual and strives for more equal opportunities.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I don't know if I'd call that a "central feature' of right wing politics since there are a lot of issues, but in the case of your example I'd say that right wing politics are more grounded in the idea of individuals being completely responsible for all of their success or failure, regardless of equality of opportunity and things like, while in contrast left-wing politics focuses more on the society around the individual and strives for more equal opportunities.

Yeah, but this is why these labels are so silly -- they will keep giving out tax breaks and bailouts despite this notion of individual responsibility. 'Right' is kind of a meaningless term at the moment. Like, if we start discussing this, we go down this rabbit hole where we don't really get anywhere, and it doesn't address the actual issues. Mostly because none of these people even know what they really stand for.

 

[Marlow]

Yeah, but this is why these labels are so silly -- they will keep giving out tax breaks and bailouts despite this notion of individual responsibility. 'Right' is kind of a meaningless term at the moment. Like, if we start discussing this, we go down this rabbit hole where we don't really get anywhere, and it doesn't address the actual issues. Mostly because none of these people even know what they really stand for.

Sure, there's often some hypocrisy in terms of what people claim they believe in vs what they tend to actually believe. I still think Right and Left is useful in a general way to help understand where people tend to side on certain issues, and how they tend to view the role of government. The problem is that too often it gets weaponized into Left vs Right, as if people belong to a different team, as opposed to plots on a line.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Sure, there's often some hypocrisy in terms of what people claim they believe in vs what they tend to actually believe. I still think Right and Left is useful in a general way to help understand where people tend to side on certain issues, and how they tend to view the role of government. The problem is that too often it gets weaponized into Left vs Right, as if people belong to a different team, as opposed to plots on a line.

I guess what I'm talking about is not exactly hypocrisy, but the fact that those two terms have come to mean so many different things, to so many people, that trying to use them as an actual descriptor of what someone believes is becoming borderline useless.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

Thats the thing, I feel like it makes sense to promote both individual responsibility with success being based on a person's intelligence, talents, drive, abilities, and the results they produce. As I said before somewhere in this thread, someone like Dr. Ben Carson (not talking about his politics, strictly talking about his profession), a brain surgeon who can remove half of a person's brain and give them use of an entire paralyzed side of their body is the 1% of the 1% in terms of his abilities (he is arguably the best child brain surgeon in the world), why shouldn't he make infinitely more money than random interchangeable dumbfuck 3,000 who got Cs in school or maybe didn't even make it through K-12. I feel like that's a "right" value anyone should get behind. Then, societal restructures working to finally defeat racism and anything that discriminates against vulnerable people so that everyone has equal opportunities is more of a "left" value that anyone should get behind. I feel like a lot of people only think that they're right or left because it's easier for people to label each other than have an actual conversation. It's a dumb way to divide people when we are already pretty heavily divided.

 

[Marlow]

Thats the thing, I feel like it makes sense to promote both individual responsibility with success being based on a person's intelligence, talents, drive, abilities, and the results they produce. As I said before somewhere in this thread, someone like Dr. Ben Carson (not talking about his politics, strictly talking about his profession), a brain surgeon who can remove half of a person's brain and give them use of an entire paralyzed side of their body is the 1% of the 1% in terms of his abilities (he is arguably the best child brain surgeon in the world), why shouldn't he make infinitely more money than random interchangeable dumbfuck 3,000 who got Cs in school or maybe didn't even make it through K-12. I feel like that's a "right" value anyone should get behind.

I don't think there's anything wrong with any of that. It doesn't need to be an either or issue. However, the questions I would have is:

1. How much of a person's success or failure is attributable to factors outside their control, such as color of their skin, family wealth, family connections, things like that?

2. Is this person an example of a "normal" expected outcome, or are they an outlier?

3. Clearly someone like Dr. Ben Carson deserves to be richly rewarded based on his value to society, the question is how much more does he deserve to be rewarded? CEO's are clearly hard workers and highly valuable to a company, but how much more than the workers should they actually make? What is fair pay ratio, and what is an unfair pay ratio?


I've never had a problem promoting individual responsibility. My issue is when people assign 100% of someone's outcome in life to personal responsibility without considering external factors. To me we have plenty of data showing that external factors matter.

To put it in FGC terms, imagine that instead of being able to choose a character, you're just assigned a character at random, and that's who you play as for the life of the game. Now, clearly if you take personal responsibility and hit the practice mode to lab your character, work on your fundamentals, and do your best, you can probably still succeed. But when looking at your tournament success, shouldn't the tier level of the character still matter, and wouldn't it be better if over time the game was patched to provide more balance?

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Thats the thing, I feel like it makes sense to promote both individual responsibility with success being based on a person's intelligence, talents, drive, abilities, and the results they produce. As I said before somewhere in this thread, someone like Dr. Ben Carson (not talking about his politics, strictly talking about his profession), a brain surgeon who can remove half of a person's brain and give them use of an entire paralyzed side of their body is the 1% of the 1% in terms of his abilities (he is arguably the best child brain surgeon in the world), why shouldn't he make infinitely more money than random interchangeable dumbfuck 3,000 who got Cs in school or maybe didn't even make it through K-12. I feel like that's a "right" value anyone should get behind. Then, societal restructures working to finally defeat racism and anything that discriminates against vulnerable people so that everyone has equal opportunities is more of a "left" value that anyone should get behind. I feel like a lot of people only think that they're right or left because it's easier for people to label each other than have an actual conversation. It's a dumb way to divide people when we are already pretty heavily divided.

The issue is that there's tons of evidence showing that people don't actually start with an equal playing field. And that a lot of success doesn't actually depend on how smart you are and how hard you work. There were systems setup in this country to abuse the hard work and innovation of others for someone else's great financial gain. So while it has the illusion of being a merit-based system, that hasn't actually been the history in this country. It's not how capitalism works.

So rather than being super extreme in our talking points "Either everybody needs to make exactly the same amount, or we shouldn't help anyone at all", it makes more sense to focus on helping people who need assistance getting around that roadblocks that are here.

If we're going to claim that this country is great and has a high quality of life, the bare minimum should be getting what you need to live and be healthy if you work an honest day's work. And beyond that, the opportunities to achieving the highest heights should be the same for everybody, regardless of what you look like, your gender, where you live etc. A few people breaking through the odds isn't justification for pretending these issues don't exist. Just like a few people escaping slavery and gaining freedom didn't mean that slavery was fine.

A society exists as a whole.. Not just as a bunch of separate individuals. We are all connected in some way. That's why we need to make sure there are basic standards for everybody. This shouldn't be hard to understand, and most of the modern first world, as well as the countries with the highest quality of living, are doing this ALREADY.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

I don't think there's anything wrong with any of that. It doesn't need to be an either or issue. However, the questions I would have is:

1. How much of a person's success or failure is attributable to factors outside their control, such as color of their skin, family wealth, family connections, things like that?

2. Is this person an example of a "normal" expected outcome, or are they an outlier?

3. Clearly someone like Dr. Ben Carson deserves to be richly rewarded based on his value to society, the question is how much more does he deserve to be rewarded? CEO's are clearly hard workers and highly valuable to a company, but how much more than the workers should they actually make? What is fair pay ratio, and what is an unfair pay ratio?


I've never had a problem promoting individual responsibility. My issue is when people assign 100% of someone's outcome in life to personal responsibility without considering external factors. To me we have plenty of data showing that external factors matter.

To put it in FGC terms, imagine that instead of being able to choose a character, you're just assigned a character at random, and that's who you play as for the life of the game. Now, clearly if you take personal responsibility and hit the practice mode to lab your character, work on your fundamentals, and do your best, you can probably still succeed. But when looking at your tournament success, shouldn't the tier level of the character still matter, and wouldn't it be better if over time the game was patched to provide more balance?

Yeah I didn't mean to argue against any of that. Obviously a person like Ben Carson is an outlier. Maybe I worded it poorly, but my post was agreeing that it shouldn't be either or, we should work to promote individual responsibility while making it more possible for everyone to reach their potential.

 

[RoboCop]

Do you not recognize this hypocrisy, particularly when you constantly like posts such as this one that claim that the modern Republican Party is "anti-minority, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay"?

Those aren't "labels" like left, right, liberal, or conservative. Those are specific traits of the Republican platform. I'm not even saying every citizen who is a Republican is actively for those things (I have a gay mentally disabled brother who lives with my Republican dad). But those are core aspects of the Republican political agenda. I'm not even sure if that's debatable. Why not tack on "anti religious freedom" while we're at it. Ooh, and "anti critical thinking", "anti sex education", and "pro birth" since Covid really shined a light on what a load of bs "pro-life" really was.