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

[Onryoki]

I just said yikes to that, because you don’t often hear a parent bash their own children on a public online forum. I don’t need to address anything else from your post if I don’t want to. I just read that part and said yikes because that was my reaction. I didn’t go for your validity as a parent, nor did I question your parenting skills.

Your children can be racist, there’s no denying in that. But isn’t it your job as a parent to educate them??? Like you could bash your own children online or you could educate them like a good parent would do. Idk why you’re so paranoid and get these delusional thoughts where you think I’m thinking that children can’t be racist. Even if my child were racist, I wouldn’t bash them online, even if they remain anonymous. Only a parent that would have a dislike for their children would do such a thing.

Who decides whether someone mislabeled a transgender person intentionally or inadvertently? How exactly will you know in each case? Which governmental entity will reinforce this rule? The police? A special police force that supervises the public's pronoun usage? You are opening a big can of worms. You are not a radical leftist, but this idea is radical.

If you intend to create a tolerant and accepting society, you can educate people at an early age without limiting their first amendment rights. For this reason, schools run anti-bullying campaigns that include LGBTQ throughout the school year.

Context is key. It’s not hard to distinct an insult vs an accident. I won’t know in each case, but that goes for any case because if that wasn’t the case. No innocent person would get sentenced to prison, etc.

 

[M2Dave]

I’m actually quite surprised vermin like you could breed offspring into this world in the first place if we’re talking about parenthood.

I usually agree with your message and like your posts, but such language is extremely counter-productive. Attack his politics and his obsession with racism. Stop attacking him personally and his parenting style, which is none of our business.

 

[Onryoki]

I usually agree with your message and like your posts, but such language is extremely counter-productive. Attack his politics and his obsession with racism. Stop attacking him personally and his parenting style, which is none of our business.

I edited my post, I’ve realised it wasn’t right for me to say that. Even though I wanted to.

 

[Law Hero]

@Second Saint beat me to the punch on this one. His voting idea is fairly close to what I believe in as well.

The one thing I would like to say is that I would prefer a parliamentary system instead of the federal system we have now. In a pipedream world that I know will never happen, I would turn the House into a more parliamentary system and abolish the Senate. The Federalist Papers rightly warned about forming political parties, but people are inevitably going to do it anyway. At least with a parliamentary system, there would be more parties that reflect people's ideals and governments would have to be formed with some form of compromise.

The Senate is too powerful and it gives more proportional influence to states with tiny populations. Mitch McConnell is the most powerful man in Washington in many ways. Yet, he represents a small state and has been entrenched in corporate power for decades. It is not fair or democratic for California to have the same amount of senators as Wyoming or Kentucky. To be fair, it is also not fair that Texas has the same amount of senators as Vermont. Since the Senate is more powerful and influential in drafting and approving legislation, picking federal and Supreme Court judges, approving treaties, etc., it gives disproportional representation to the small states at the expense of the big states.

I have lived in the NYC and Philadelphia. More people lived in my neighborhoods than live in Wyoming. Yet, we have the same amount of representation in the Senate. It is intrinsically unfair.

Lastly, I would like term limits across the board for all federal, state, and local offices, including all judge positions and the Supreme Court. I would like national voting holidays so it is easier for people to vote. And, public-funded elections to keep corporate money out of politics. These ideas are probably not going to happen anytime soon. But, one can dream I guess.

What do you believe should be done?

The primary reason I asked was because most of the time when I hear someone say they dislike the electoral college, their solution is to simply count votes and let the majority decide which makes me want to pull out my hair. Considering your posts are typically well-thought-out, I was curious to see if you had any alternatives. If you agree with Second Saint, I'd say I'm more than satisfied.

I actually really like Saint's response as well; however, my area of expertise is not politics but economics, and although the two usually overlap, I'm far from an expert on the former so I don't have any special insight to provide. On the surface, Saint's suggestions sound really good, and I think they would make for an improvement over the system we have now. As I said though, I'm not an expert and therefore I cannot foresee what sorts of possible loopholes or problems which could stem from it, so I'm going to refrain from fully endorsing something I don't fully understand yet. All that being said, I fully agree that states (especially big ones like California and Texas) need a system that better represents their enormous population. I feel the Democrats in Texas as well as the Republicans (who typically reside) in Southern and Central California are simply not represented because of the current system. States like these are massive enough to be their own countries, and require a different method of representation than those of the much smaller ones.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

I feel the liberals in Texas as well as the Republicans (who typically reside) in Southern and Central California are simply not represented because of the current system.

100% agree, both of these populations exist and due to the large populations of these states there are liberal Texans and conservative Californians that basically get no say.

I think that the electoral college works for smaller states, but larger states could maybe have more regional divisons? I'm not sure, I'm no expert, but I think that could make sense.

 

[RM AtK!]

this thread is stupid af ... The battle of whos fake PHD in Political Science is legit.

 

[The Slaj Jazz]

Whose ready for the debates tonight? I wonder if they're going to have live fact checking.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

Whose ready for the debates tonight? I wonder if they're going to have live fact checking.

I think it's gonna be a mess but should be pretty damn entertaining. The 2016 debates produced some pretty good memes, "Pokemon go to the polls", "Because you'd be in jail", and a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head were pretty decent memes. Hopefully something similar happens here because I don't see how you can be excited to watch these guys have actual conversations (as if).

 

[CrimsonShadow]

The primary reason I asked was because most of the time when I hear someone say they dislike the electoral college, their solution is to simply count votes and let the majority decide which makes me want to pull out my hair. Considering your posts are typically well-thought-out, I was curious to see if you had any alternatives. If you agree with Second Saint, I'd say I'm more than satisfied.

I actually really like Saint's response as well; however, my area of expertise is not politics but economics, and although the two usually overlap, I'm far from an expert on the former so I don't have any special insight to provide. On the surface, Saint's suggestions sound really good, and I think they would make for an improvement over the system we have now. As I said though, I'm not an expert and therefore I cannot foresee what sorts of possible loopholes or problems which could stem from it, so I'm going to refrain from fully endorsing something I don't fully understand yet. All that being said, I fully agree that states (especially big ones like California and Texas) need a system that better represents their enormous population. I feel the Democrats in Texas as well as the Republicans (who typically reside) in Southern and Central California are simply not represented because of the current system. States like these are massive enough to be their own countries, and require a different method of representation than those of the much smaller ones.

If you get rid of the Electoral College then the states will be proportionally represented automatically according to their population, which is how it works in most other Democratic countries.

We're the only major first-world country that counts votes this way, and it leads to the situation we have now, where someone can lose by multiple millions of votes and still be president.

I think that it would be a good step towards starting to change representation in this country -- but as it's not likely to happen soon, I think we should also focus on things that we can do right now (like shoring up education, health care, attacking poverty etc).

 

[Living Corpse]

Everybody should always be able to self criticise.

However, one side is clearly worse than the other here - and RoboCop summarised it perfectly.

I always feel that the “both sides” argument is centrist bullshit and a cop out from truly calling out the horrendous activies of the right wing. If anything it’s complacency which further silently supports their actions.

I'm normally apolitical but since Trump has gotten in office I've been paying attention more to what the right does (more like impossible to ignore when it's so out in the open) and yeah. They've lost their god damn minds.

 

[SaSSolino]

Holy shit! This thread is still going!

Has a thread about actual fighting games ever gone this long on TYM?!

 

[BurdaA]

We're the only major first-world country that counts votes this way, and it leads to the situation we have now, where someone can lose by multiple millions of votes and still be president.

Not really disagreeing – as the UK doesnt exactly share the US system – but we don’t have proportional representation either.

Just for clarity.

Or we’re just not a major country

 

[Vslayer]

Holy shit! This thread is still going!

Has a thread about actual fighting games ever gone this long on TYM?!

I'm not sure lmao, probably not.

 

[Marlow]

I'm not sure lmao, probably not.

Isn't the Johnny Cage general discussion thread like 150 pages of JC mains complaining about how terrible he is?

 

[KingHippo]

"I condemn all forms of White Supremacy"

-Does this-

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311481175689568256

 

[S+ Main]

Random message to help this thread reach 100 pages.

Also I spent pretty much 2 whole work days to read this thread. Its very interesting and I'm glad that there can be such discussions on here that go as long as this and not go turn to insults. Its nice to see everyones opinions and beliefs imo.
(even though i'm from the UK so this stuff doesnt really apply to me).

 

[CrimsonShadow]

So, what did this guy do wrong:

Man killed by Texas police after intervening in dispute, family says

Jonathan Price, 31, had stepped in between a couple arguing at a gas station about an hour north of Dallas.

www.nbcnews.com

Anybody who can't see that this is a problem at this point is intentionally lying to themselves, imo. Police are supposed to keep the peace, not to exact death sentences on unarmed civilians.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

So, what did this guy do wrong:

Man killed by Texas police after intervening in dispute, family says

Jonathan Price, 31, had stepped in between a couple arguing at a gas station about an hour north of Dallas.

www.nbcnews.com

You just know that right wingers are researching en masse into whether this guy had previously committed a crime.

The irony is that they’re usually super religious and believe in ‘forgiveness’ - except when it comes to black people.

Kind of like how they love to push the narrative of the American dream, but when somebody like AOC (a leftist POC) has actually worked hard to get to where she is their only retort is “go make me a drink”.

Tragic news though, but once again people will somehow attempt to justify it in this thread....

 

[Vslayer]

The problem is being 'religious' doesn't mean anything these days. I would bet my left tit that these 'religious' right-wingers haven't opened a Bible in years. If they truly understood what was in there, they wouldn't waste their time being racist.

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

If they truly understood what was in there, they wouldn't waste their time being racist.

Is this to say you don't think one can get either explicitly or implicitly a justification for racial discrimination via the prominent religious texts?

 

[Vslayer]

Is this to say you don't think one can get either explicitly or implicitly a justification for racial discrimination via the prominent religious texts?

I’m saying that if they actually read the Bible and followed Jesus instead of “religion” they would understand how to love their neighbour, so to speak. Regardless of race or gender. People use religion as a blanket term but don’t truly believe, is what I meant.

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

I’m saying that if they actually read the Bible and followed Jesus instead of “religion” they would understand how to love their neighbour, so to speak. Regardless of race or gender. People use religion as a blanket term but don’t truly believe, is what I meant.

I guess my question would then become specifically what in their behavior or structural view of theology would be inconsistent with (in this case) biblical teaching. After all in the New Testament the bible explicitly states for slaves to obey their masters ,as was quoted by the Confederation for it's theological justification for the practice of slavery. This is just one example of many that can be pointed to from which to derive racial bias, and this is true of every major religious text I've ever read.

 

[KingHippo]

The funny thing about religious texts is they can be interpreted as guiding paths for strict leftists (MLK, Cornel West, Malcom X) and far right ideologues that are legion.

The real answer is that the Catholic Church, for literal centuries, dominated the majority of the known Western world and had its paws everywhere, typically in the name of conquest, plunder, and unequal hierarchies. And much of that was done with an ancient text that only the elite could read and pass down to its common folk, who they reigned over without impunity. That isn't just undone overnight, and its foothold in America is clearly not going to be stopped by ghoulish politicians having bad takes and making people miserable.

 

[Vslayer]

I guess my question would then become specifically what in their behavior or structural view of theology would be inconsistent with (in this case) biblical teaching. After all in the New Testament the bible explicitly states for slaves to obey their masters ,as was quoted by the Confederation for it's theological justification for the practice of slavery. This is just one example of many that can be pointed to from which to derive racial bias, and this is true of every major religious text I've ever read.

There are lessons to be learned from every book in the Bible, good stuff, but a lot of the stories in the Old Testament especially revolve around things that aren’t culturally our reality anymore because of the time it was written in, like slavery. The Bible doesn’t say slavery is good in any capacity and people who say so, have very little theological and biblical understanding.

God sent his son to teach us how to love others and that’s what I was referring too. A lot of people who call themselves religious and haven’t read the gospels in years often chose religion over God and Jesus, and hatred over love.

I really don’t get how you got to slavery with what I said but all I was referring to is how Jesus teaches us how to love others selflessly and that’s what “religious” people lack because they choose group mentality over Jesus and his teachings because they literally forget them by not reading the gospels.

 

[Anarchist_Gib]

There are lessons to be learned from every book in the Bible, good stuff, but a lot of the stories in the Old Testament especially revolve around things that aren’t culturally our reality anymore because of the time it was written in, like slavery.

That's partly why I specifically mentioned the New Testament, as it there is a common perception of it doing away with the worst aspects of the Old when in fact it makes many of the same moral failings (or worse as it's where we derive the concept of hell as a place of eternal torment for finite transgression as opposed to the previous Judaic version). I of course COULD reasonably go into Old testament examples of racism like the laws surrounding the enslavement of Jews versus other races of man, or the Amalekites, as no point are these race-based moral pronouncements explicitly redacted in the text.

The Bible doesn’t say slavery is good in any capacity and people who say so, have very little theological and biblical understanding.

The point there would be that it never says slavery is NOT good, and in fact demands that slaves obey. It also lays down the method by which you could con your Jewish slaves into lifetime servitude via getting them to marry while enslaved.

God sent his son to teach us how to love others and that’s what I was referring too. A lot of people who call themselves religious and haven’t read the gospels in years often chose religion over God and Jesus, and hatred over love.

A reading of Jesus's intentions towards the world as presented in Mathews doesn't quite paint the picture of love that I'd ascribe to, which partly indicates why love is a valueless word as far as moral philosophy goes. You can have a situation, an abusive father for example, wherein the conditions imposed are beyond reprehensible but not necessarily without "love".

I also wonder how one can reasonably separate biblical (religious) dictate and the teachings of Jesus. You lose the justification for one without the other.

I really don’t get how you got to slavery with what I said but all I was referring to is how Jesus teaches us how to love others selflessly and that’s what “religious” people lack because they choose group mentality over Jesus and his teachings because they literally forget them by not reading the gospels.

My whole reason for starting this particular discussion was that I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of people having religiously-founded bigoted opinions as being necessarily less informed or knowledgeable than a humanist interpretation of biblical teaching. I rather think they are consistent with both the text itself as well as the history surrounding it. I mentioned slavery because it's an easy extreme to point out, because not even 200 years ago the argument for slavery was almost exclusively theological. They weren't reading a different text than you, they were merely taking it at face value.