What's new

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

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
I will gladly agree with you on that. I think one of the major problems that keep a lot of portions of the left from having proper conversations and connections with the average person is terrible wording for a multitude of things. I lean left on a lot of issues but I have these discussions time and time again with my friends: it doesn't mean jack shit that you have a lot of theoretical insight and classifications on many important issues if you can't convince people to think the way you do. That's not how you change things. At all.

And to be fair, there are quite a few theoretical society models where an organized police force as we know it doesn't exist. This notion simply has no place in realpolitik, though. At least in my mind.
It's horrific wording combined with nobody wants to listen to each other.
 

NeonGroovyGator

Edenia's Ambassador
It's horrific wording combined with nobody wants to listen to each other.
Convincing people to change their minds on what they think is right/wrong is an exhausting endeavor. That's why I like libertarianism a lot except for a few non negotiable things (like healthcare and basic education for all). The least influence the average voter has on my money and my rights, the better.
(I'm being 100% serious, by the way. In the age of misinformation, extremism and fake news I feel like the main argument for less government is that I want the average voter to have as little influence in my life as possible, and I think you should, too).
 

KingHippo

Alternative-Fact Checker
Abolition, to me, is an uprooting of the system we have in place, and for prisons, I think, like policing, that needs to happen because these systems have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The idea of prison, the prevailing justification behind it, is that it is seen as a method of rehabilitation, a punishment that you serve, whether for a time or the rest of your life, at which point you re-enter society, humbled by your rehabilitation.

But is that happening? Our prisons are absolutely jam packed still, with crime (until recent spikes) being at all-time lows. New York City is not the New York City of the 1970's. Some of that is criminal justice reform that has had disproportionate effects on black and brown populations, but that's a different argument. The point being that crime statistics have been going down for years now, and yet somehow are prisons are more full up than ever.

Part of that is because the system does not see prison as rehabilitation, but as a coin-operated machine that not only makes money for those who own them, but rely on being filled to the brink. Thus we have our current model of parole and probation, which essentially follows former prisoners around in perpetuity. Millions of dollars are spent arming and paying people to follow ex-cons around, waiting for the slightest slip-up as they re-enter society so they can put them right back in jail. This all feeds itself, and ensures that "rehabilitation" is in the eye of the beholder, who finds it profitable to keep the prisons full.

The vast, vast majority of prisoners are not the serial murderers and rapists. Many people, who lack the ability to obtain legal counsel to defend themselves, accept plea bargains from the state in order to receive a somewhat reduced sentence. "Murder" lumps in both serial murder and those who were in the commission of a felony when someone around them accidentally died. 1 in 5 people in prison are there for nonviolent drug offenses, and drug and public order offenses (prostitution, drug use, disorderly conduct, etc.). If you go to a place where dehumanization and keeping the cells full is the name of the game, and your offense was nonviolent, what chance do you have to escape that life?

That said, there are a not-small amount of repeat violent offenders who do commit murder and rape. And I do agree that isolation from society is sometimes the only answer for these people. At the same time, I don't think the state should operate as an apparatus for cruel, carceral violence as some sort of Code of Hammurabi-cosplay. I think facilities for isolation should still be dedicated to true rehabilitation, through proper medical care, mental health resources, education, etc. I think seeing prisoners as not human is a fundamental moral failing, and that logic, that those who break with what the state interprets as the rule of law are lesser humans, has been used to justify an incredible amount of violence not just stateside, but globally against others.

Tl;dr: I do think the prison industrial complex as it exists in the United States needs to go away, it's the greatest committer of violence that we have going today. I do not believe in "no prisons," but I also do not believe in sardine-packed cells patrolled by cruel guards who uphold the status quo of the prison's rich owners and enforce their cruelty on prisoners long after they've left the prison. I think there are better ways.
 

Juggs

Lose without excuses
Lead Moderator
Richard Spencer is, to quote Wikipedia, "an American neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist who is known for his activism on behalf of the alt-right movement in 2016 and 2017.

Nick Cannon went from apologizing for anti-Semitic comments, to having an "intense and intriguing debate' with a neo-Nazi. The problem is, if you're trying to have a serious discussion, why are you giving someone like this a platform to spread their message of hate? Normally when you have a debate or bring a guest on to discuss a topic, there's a certain amount of implicit good faith that both sides have legitimate points to make.

All you're really accomplishing by having a guest like Spencer on is giving a platform and credibility to ideas that deserve neither.
Ahh, makes more sense now. I knew I had heard that name before.
 

Onryoki

Broken beyond repair.
17604
Y’all got some actual problems
Ok and now? Want a sticker? Do you want some validation? Should put it in a cup and give it to you? Or is that not what you want? Do you want the responses? Do you want the likes? What do you hope to achieve with this post? What is it that you so desperately crave?
 

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
I didn't even like that picture. Literally all I commented on was that person's physical appearance, which she (if that is a woman?) absolutely opens herself up to if she's gonna wear a piece of clothing that says fuck an entire race lmao
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
Abolition, to me, is an uprooting of the system we have in place, and for prisons, I think, like policing, that needs to happen because these systems have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The idea of prison, the prevailing justification behind it, is that it is seen as a method of rehabilitation, a punishment that you serve, whether for a time or the rest of your life, at which point you re-enter society, humbled by your rehabilitation.

But is that happening? Our prisons are absolutely jam packed still, with crime (until recent spikes) being at all-time lows. New York City is not the New York City of the 1970's. Some of that is criminal justice reform that has had disproportionate effects on black and brown populations, but that's a different argument. The point being that crime statistics have been going down for years now, and yet somehow are prisons are more full up than ever.

Part of that is because the system does not see prison as rehabilitation, but as a coin-operated machine that not only makes money for those who own them, but rely on being filled to the brink. Thus we have our current model of parole and probation, which essentially follows former prisoners around in perpetuity. Millions of dollars are spent arming and paying people to follow ex-cons around, waiting for the slightest slip-up as they re-enter society so they can put them right back in jail. This all feeds itself, and ensures that "rehabilitation" is in the eye of the beholder, who finds it profitable to keep the prisons full.

The vast, vast majority of prisoners are not the serial murderers and rapists. Many people, who lack the ability to obtain legal counsel to defend themselves, accept plea bargains from the state in order to receive a somewhat reduced sentence. "Murder" lumps in both serial murder and those who were in the commission of a felony when someone around them accidentally died. 1 in 5 people in prison are there for nonviolent drug offenses, and drug and public order offenses (prostitution, drug use, disorderly conduct, etc.). If you go to a place where dehumanization and keeping the cells full is the name of the game, and your offense was nonviolent, what chance do you have to escape that life?

That said, there are a not-small amount of repeat violent offenders who do commit murder and rape. And I do agree that isolation from society is sometimes the only answer for these people. At the same time, I don't think the state should operate as an apparatus for cruel, carceral violence as some sort of Code of Hammurabi-cosplay. I think facilities for isolation should still be dedicated to true rehabilitation, through proper medical care, mental health resources, education, etc. I think seeing prisoners as not human is a fundamental moral failing, and that logic, that those who break with what the state interprets as the rule of law are lesser humans, has been used to justify an incredible amount of violence not just stateside, but globally against others.

Tl;dr: I do think the prison industrial complex as it exists in the United States needs to go away, it's the greatest committer of violence that we have going today. I do not believe in "no prisons," but I also do not believe in sardine-packed cells patrolled by cruel guards who uphold the status quo of the prison's rich owners and enforce their cruelty on prisoners long after they've left the prison. I think there are better ways.
This one's a tough one. It seems like in fairly mission-critical areas, you have to run some kind of trial or test before you destabilize the entire system. The thing that's really unfortunate (but still has to be considered) is that people seem to be intolerant of any negative side effects from attempted solutions, even if the problems they are trying to fix are already bad.

Here's a couple examples of this:
  • Public schools are bad. Bill Gates attempts to fix schools by trialing some new methods in a number of charter schools. They are unsuccessful. Bill gates is vilified for trying to change the status quo in a way that is deemed unsuccessful, even though millions of students are churned out of badly failing public schools every year.
  • Traffic accidents kill 38,000 people in the US every year, with 3 million injuries (2 million of which are permanent). Self-driving vehicles have the chance to drastically reduce the numbers of injuries and deaths. A self-driving vehicle in an Uber trial kills a pedestrian who is crossing a highway without looking. Self-driving car development ends up being demonized on the whole, people portray self-driving cars as unsafe, even though they're trying to fix a problem that permanently affects millions of people's lives every year.
So it's like.. How do you get around this? How do we fix education, transportation, or criminal justice if we can't trial things? And how do we deal with the fallout from inevitable failures of some of these tests, in order to get to the solutions we need, and solve some of these issues for millions of people?

In fact, the crime laws themselves are sort of an example of this, although it's been a decades long and mostly uncontrolled 'trial'. I don't think that the Clintons (or even Regan) set out to ruin people's lives when they were pushing stricter laws -- they lived in an era where crime was spiraling out of control, and they were trying to fix the issues. And in a sense, it worked.. Crime went down drastically. However, there were some highly unfortunate side effects.. And now the Clintons are being demonized, as if it was their nefarious plan to harm communities of color all along.

Anyway, it's tough. Maybe I need to look up some other historical examples where the situation was similar. But how do we go about fixing these issues, when people are so ready to abandon ship at any possible roadblock?
 

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
This one's a tough one. It seems like in fairly mission-critical areas, you have to run some kind of trial or test before you destabilize the entire system. The thing that's really unfortunate (but still has to be considered) is that people seem to be intolerant of any negative side effects from attempted solutions, even if the problems they are trying to fix are already bad.

Here's a couple examples of this:
  • Public schools are bad. Bill Gates attempts to fix schools by trialing some new methods in a number of charter schools. They are unsuccessful. Bill gates is vilified for trying to change the status quo in a way that is deemed unsuccessful, even though millions of students are churned out of badly failing public schools every year.
  • Traffic accidents kill 38,000 people in the US every year, with 3 million injuries (2 million of which are permanent). Self-driving vehicles have the chance to drastically reduce the numbers of injuries and deaths. A self-driving vehicle in an Uber trial kills a pedestrian who is crossing a highway without looking. Self-driving car development ends up being demonized on the whole, people portray self-driving cars as unsafe, even though they're trying to fix a problem that permanently affects millions of people's lives every year.
So it's like.. How do you get around this? How do we fix education, transportation, or criminal justice if we can't trial things? And how do we deal with the fallout from inevitable failures of some of these tests, in order to get to the solutions we need, and solve some of these issues for millions of people?

In fact, the crime laws themselves are sort of an example of this, although it's been a decades long and mostly uncontrolled 'trial'. I don't think that the Clintons (or even Regan) set out to ruin people's lives when they were pushing stricter laws -- they lived in an era where crime was spiraling out of control, and they were trying to fix the issues. And in a sense, it worked.. Crime went down drastically. However, there were some highly unfortunate side effects.. And now the Clintons are being demonized, as if it was their nefarious plan to harm communities of color all along.

Anyway, it's tough. Maybe I need to look up some other historical examples where the situation was similar. But how do we go about fixing these issues, when people are so ready to abandon ship at any possible roadblock?
Didn't know that about Bill Gates, interesting.
 

NaCl man

Welcome to Akihabara
I didn't even like that picture. Literally all I commented on was that person's physical appearance, which she (if that is a woman?) absolutely opens herself up to if she's gonna wear a piece of clothing that says fuck an entire race lmao
Exactly right. Makes that person no better than the neo nazi dickhead that was punched.
 

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
Exactly right. Makes that person no better than the neo nazi dickhead that was punched.
Yeah I don't see what was so bad about anything I said.

If a nazi prick gets punched in the face, I will laugh at them.

If a fat fucko wears a shirt that says "fuck white people", making fun of their physical appearance is absolutely on the table.
 

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
that person is much better then the nazi. she is fighting against white privilege. the nazi is fighting for white supremacy. pretending these 2 are the same undermines how dangerous white supremacy is
"Fuck white people" is different than fighting against white privilege lmao, I don't want white privilege, but I'm not going to say fuck white people cause I'm not an idiot.

Also she will accomplish nothing, I don't see how that will combat white privilege at all. It does nothing to help her goals if they truly are pure.
 

Baconlord

Proud follower of the church of Cetrion
"Fuck white people" is different than fighting against white privilege lmao, I don't want white privilege, but I'm not going to say fuck white people cause I'm not an idiot.

Also she will accomplish nothing, I don't see how that will combat white privilege at all. It does nothing to help her goals if they truly are pure.
I agree that saying fuck white people does really do anything. in fact it's a harmless statement that doesn't impact white people at all. that is why we should not compare it to what a nazi is doing because his ideology actually causes real harm to people.