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

[KingHippo]

Should also be noted that letter signee and so-called free speech champion Bari Weiss, who today resigned from the NYT citing a "hivemind" that was causing her views to be censored, spent her formative years at Columbia University shamelessly trying to get Arab professors critical of Israel shamed and fired, nearly succeeding before the NYCLU and Columbia themselves put a stop to it.

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/

 

[M2Dave]

Literally yesterday I saw people try to cancel the game developer Swery65 because he dared to change a bit of content in his latest game which was considered transphobic (which wasn’t his intention, think it was more of a lost in translation issue). There were TONS of responses saying “I was going to buy this game, but not anymore now you’ve bent the knee to the woke mob”.

Huh? What does this example have anything to do with cancel culture? A consumer may or may not purchase a product based on his or her taste. A small minority of Mortal Kombat 11 fans also refused to purchase the game because females were de-sexualized.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1281604989593559040

https://sports.yahoo.com/espn-suspends-adrian-wojnarowski-for-emailing-f-you-to-us-sen-josh-hawley-032437631.html

Right. Trying to shoehorn this into politics looks absolutely foolish.

A Republican senator sends a political message to the NBA commissioner. One of ESPN's NBA analyst sees the message and replies "Fuck you" and gets suspended.

I am lost because I am not in the far-left bubble. What does this story have to do with cancel culture? Please explain.

Should also be noted that letter signee and so-called free speech champion Bari Weiss, who today resigned from the NYT citing a "hivemind" that was causing her views to be censored, spent her formative years at Columbia University shamelessly trying to get Arab professors critical of Israel shamed and fired, nearly succeeding before the NYCLU and Columbia themselves put a stop to it.

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/

Why are you attacking the messenger instead of the message?

Harper's Letter has absolutely nothing to do with transgender people or those who were trying to get anyone fired.

The letter is about open debate.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

I know that not everyone has access to healthy food, this is a dead honest question, not trying to be patronizing, which I feel I must make clear because tone can get lost in translation through text..... How many people don't have access to a Walmart? I live near the Navajo Reservation and 50 ish % of the population don't even have running water, can't get much worse than that. I can see the argument there and in extremely rural stone age living environments like that, but I'm not fucking loaded or anything, I buy food at Walmart.

Also to be clear I understand that food addiction is a real thing and once you get hooked on shitty food it is a hard habit to break because your body is screaming for it, the ghrelin hormone is punching you in the face, I have empathy for anyone suffering from obesity, I was formerly overweight, it is hard as shit to beat. Don't misunderstand me and think that I don't understand how hard it can be to get healthy, but once again.... Walmart. I still go there, I just buy different things no and honestly don't spend much more money. Buying meat in bulk, frozen vegetables, wheat bread, etc isn't super ridiculously expensive, you don't even need a super super clean like a men's physique competitor to be healthy. You need to respect basic things like calories in / out meaning portion control, don't drink any of your calories, and stay away from processed sugar. I feel that anyone who has access to a freezer, running water, and Walmart/Safeway, etc. have the means to eat a healthy diet. Another aspect of the cost that's often ignored is that actual real food is more satisfying so you don't need to eat as much to achieve the same level of fullness in many cases.

As someone who has struggled with his weight in the past and still has fucked up body image issues even after getting in good shape, I get it and anyone is welcome to PM me if they want to vent or talk about it. Shit really sucks, I'm tired of seeing kids getting addicted to trash being set up for an early grave, or as the coronavirus pandemic is showing us, make themselves vulnerable to something that barely hits healthy members of the population. I may not be as outwardly SYMPATHETIC as a lot of you guys on here but I do have a lot of EMPATHY, so like I said, hit me up if you're struggling with your health and want to talk to me, I feel that I have a decent handle on what it takes to get that part of your life under control in terms of personal experience and my education.

 

[mrapchem]

I'm sympathetic with almost any line of thinking that seeks to reduce our military budget or to repurpose those funds. Unfortunately, you won't find a more beautiful and harmonious example of bipartisanship then you'll find with Republicans and Democrats when it comes to supporting bloated military budgets along with a foreign policy of imperialism and endless war. We need better representation on this issue at all levels of federal government.

Can you say that again please?!?!?! Spot on.

 

[KingHippo]

Why are you attacking the messenger instead of the message?

Harper's Letter has absolutely nothing to do with transgender people or those who were trying to get anyone fired.

The letter is about open debate.

Because half of its signers don't believe in open debate, as Weiss here has demonstrated. Much like many of the people she criticized with almost all of her op-eds and her signing of this letter, Bari has repeatedly demonstrated in the recent past a zeal for silencing the voices of people she was personally offended by. As do many of the people who signed that letter. David Frum, as an example, was a speechwriter for George W. Bush, whose administration is famous for having misled the country into a war with 100,000+ dead Iraqis and numerous war crimes that its perpetrators will never face justice for as well as the brutal mismanagement of a natural disaster that displaced millions, yet here he signs his name to a letter that includes this line:

"The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation."

The nerve of this prick!

 

[CrimsonShadow]

A Republican senator sends a political message to the NBA commissioner. One of ESPN's NBA analyst sees the message and replies "Fuck you" and gets suspended.

I am lost because I am not in the far-left bubble. What does this story have to do with cancel culture? Please explain.

FChamp tweets a racist message and gets banned.

What does this story have to do with cancel culture? Please explain.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

Huh? What does this example have anything to do with cancel culture? A consumer may or may not purchase a product based on his or her taste. A small minority of Mortal Kombat 11 fans also refused to purchase the game because females were de-sexualized.



A Republican senator sends a political message to the NBA commissioner. One of ESPN's NBA analyst sees the message and replies "Fuck you" and gets suspended.

I am lost because I am not in the far-left bubble. What does this story have to do with cancel culture? Please explain.



Why are you attacking the messenger instead of the message?

Harper's Letter has absolutely nothing to do with transgender people or those who were trying to get anyone fired.

The letter is about open debate.

Genuine question but do you struggle to read?

Where in my example did people cancel him because of their taste? They did it because he did something they didn’t like.

 

[M2Dave]

Because half of its signers don't believe in open debate, as Weiss here has demonstrated. Much like many of the people she criticized with almost all of her op-eds and her signing of this letter, Bari has repeatedly demonstrated in the recent past a zeal for silencing the voices of people she was personally offended by. As do many of the people who signed that letter. David Frum, as an example, was a speechwriter for George W. Bush, whose administration is famous for having misled the country into a war with 100,000+ dead Iraqis and numerous war crimes that its perpetrators will never face justice for as well as the brutal mismanagement of a natural disaster that displaced millions, yet here he signs his name to a letter that includes this line:

"The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation."

The nerve of this prick!

If you are vetting people for purity, I am not certain how many will be qualified to join your cause.

Besides, nobody cared what any of the signers have done in the past until they signed the letter.

FChamp tweets a racist message and gets banned.

What does this story have to do with cancel culture? Please explain.

I am not debating the ban, but a permanent ban? Why is he being treated as bad as, if not worse, than Infiltration who was accused of domestic violence? Why do words carry as much weight as beating your wife? This mentality is loony and inconsistent.

 

[KingHippo]

If you are vetting people for purity, I am not certain how many will be qualified to join your cause.

Besides, nobody cared what any of the signers have done in the past until they signed the letter.

First of all, there is a massive difference between "purity" and "complicit in and wrote the speeches of an administration that contributed to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths based on a fabrication," and secondly, the piece from Greenwald I linked about Weiss was written in 2018, and she's rarely escaped scrutiny since. Frum even longer. A ton of those people are in fact well known for being dipshits who are consistently and loudly professional victims that despite being so oppressed somehow never find themselves out of a job and/or out of favor with wealthy institutions

The point is that very few of those people on that list actually stand for what they preach. Chomsky is one of the very few, with a long history to back that up, and while I disagree with him in this respect he hasn't wavered from that opinion for nigh on 50 years. J.K Rowling is now a free speech icon because she is concern trolling about trans women in bathrooms in 2020, a position knowingly made up for public discourse by Catholic extremists



What these people want is an excuse to be loud, dumb, and wrong to their large audiences while skirting the responsibility of how much their spreading of lies and their own history of false outrage has brought pain and danger upon others. This misinformation literally had an NRS community member in my own scene say they would shoot my trans woman friend if she were in the same bathroom as his wife.

 

[ChaosTheory]

Edit: seems like it was towards me @ChaosTheory find me what I said that led you to think I'd actually agree with the premise of the video?

I don't see how you conclude that initial post was aimed at you. I know how to quote a post on this forum.

My next post, though... Directly responded to you claiming not "anybody" would agree with the video. I assume you saw it and found it ludicrous and didn't want to be lumped in. No problem.

But you did imply that I was completely off-base with my comment (people nodding in agreement). I then took the low-hanging fruit, which was multiple posters quickly supporting the sentiment of the video, to show that I don't think it was off-base at all.

...of course the choice to open this discussion was a video of African-Americans, rather than a discussion of how this issue affects our nation as a whole...

That's because this isn't (wasn't) a discussion about obesity and how it affects our nation as a whole. It isn't (wasn't) about how obesity affects black women.

The point of the video wasn't even really about the woman's silly message. The point of the video was the crowd's reaction to the silly message. Raised eyebrows into pursed lips and nodding, agreeing with it. I likened the audience to participants in this thread.

Also, you included "of course" that I linked a video of a black person. As if I had my pick of the litter of comparable clips by Mexicans, whites, or Asians and I just chose this one so that I could fuck black people real good.

It further illustrates that you are incapable of, or unwilling to, engage without defaulting to racial victimhood.

 

[Marinjuana]

A ton of those people are in fact well known for being dipshits who are consistently and loudly professional victims that despite being so oppressed somehow never find themselves out of a job and/or out of favor with wealthy institutions

It's unproductive to dismiss the letter outright because of some of the signatories. Even more so to discredit others who signed by their association with a few bad apples. More than a third of the signers are employed at a college or university, many of them being well regarded. Others include prize winning journalists, playwrights, musicians, etc. You are framing it as if it's a bunch of Alex Jones types.

 

[KingHippo]

It's unproductive to dismiss the letter outright because of some of the signatories. Even more so to discredit others who signed by their association with a few bad apples. More than a third of the signers are employed at a college or university, many of them being well regarded. Others include prize winning journalists, playwrights, musicians, etc. You are framing it as if it's a bunch of Alex Jones types.

I dismiss the letter based on absurd phrases like this contained within:

"The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation."

It just helps that some of its signees include people literally guilty of the same acts it decries and/or people complicit in the acts of one of the most blood soaked presidential administrations in history

 

[KingHippo]

The point of the video was the crowd's reaction to the silly message. Raised eyebrows into pursed lips and nodding, agreeing with it. I likened the audience to participants in this thread.

So let me get this straight: you're accusing Crimson of defaulting to "racial victimhood," after specifically picking out a video where black women discuss to an audience of black women the often-unsaid aspects of how anti-blackness can perpetuate so that it adversely affects the health of black people, with the intent to mock how hysterical they were about anti-blackness, and Crimson is the one bringing race into the mix?

 

[Marinjuana]

I dismiss the letter based on absurd phrases like this contained within:

"The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation."

It just helps that some of its signees include people literally guilty of the same acts it decries and/or people complicit in the acts of one of the most blood soaked presidential administrations in history

Do have a problem with that statement? Or the context it's being used in? In the US we've had a repressive government stifle debate and we've had an intolerant society stifle the voices of those who lack power, such as African Americans and various other minority groups. It's a very basic statement towards the merits of open debate.

 

[MrArcher15]

I don't see how you conclude that initial post was aimed at you. I know how to quote a post on this forum.

My next post, though... Directly responded to you claiming not "anybody" would agree with the video. I assume you saw it and found it ludicrous and didn't want to be lumped in. No problem.

But you did imply that I was completely off-base with my comment (people nodding in agreement). I then took the low-hanging fruit, which was multiple posters quickly supporting the sentiment of the video, to show that I don't think it was off-base at all.



That's because this isn't (wasn't) a discussion about obesity and how it affects our nation as a whole. It isn't (wasn't) about how obesity affects black women.

The point of the video wasn't even really about the woman's silly message. The point of the video was the crowd's reaction to the silly message. Raised eyebrows into pursed lips and nodding, agreeing with it. I likened the audience to participants in this thread.

Also, you included "of course" that I linked a video of a black person. As if I had my pick of the litter of comparable clips by Mexicans, whites, or Asians and I just chose this one so that I could fuck black people real good.

It further illustrates that you are incapable of, or unwilling to, engage without defaulting to racial victimhood.

Hey once again I can play this game too. I didn't conclude it was aimed at me I responded because it seemed like it was aimed at me. I even said in the message when dave asked me why i just made the assumption you're like the person in the video I linked that I am not sure if your post was directed at me or not. Also I said I HIGHLY DOUBT anyone would say that, thats not an absolute. I specifically said that in case there was something I was missing as you can see in my following post where I said there may be other factors I am missing. I didn't see anybody saying trump is the reason black women are obese. What I did see were people saying poverty can be a reason for not being able to afford healthier foods, and that racism CAN be apart of the issue along with the things like not exercising not making proper food choices etc. I don't see any post that literally says SHES OBESE CUZ TRUMP & RACISM like you claimed would happen, rather I see people saying there are a multitude of factors.

 

[KingHippo]

It's a very basic statement towards the merits of open debate.

Exactly, that's why it's horseshit. The cowardice of it all is what annoys me; it keeps obliquely referring to right-wing institutions as mired in the strategies of lies and censorship, while then referring to "all sides" being complicit in these issues without naming exactly who this letter appeals to: academics, op-ed writers, and celebrities who get yelled at on Twitter or by their students/readers.

It's so unbelievably disconnected from the realities of how institutional power affords who and what has a voice, and instead blames it on a blobless "society," as if it's the people at large that are doing the firing (what very little of these signees have actually seen consequences for what they say) and not the institutions and elites attempting to cover up their own illicit histories by offering up a few token sacrifices. It also is somewhat sad that for "speaking for the people," this letter is signed by people who are either mired in the highest levels of untouchable academia, celebrity or corporate-media positions, or those who have a history of not-unotable transphobia.

Someone like Chomsky, who signed as well, has consistently said that he believes the state should not have the right to decide what is and isn't free speech, which means that he's opposed to public universities taking the job of someone due to a free speech violation, a conviction he's stuck to for 50 odd years. I think it's a more complex issue than that and I disagree with his position, but I know (via history) that he's most likely operating in good faith and his position is not without nuance and empathy.

Rowling? Weiss? Frum? Brooks? Fukuyama? Mounk? Pinker? Singal? Yglesias? When you have doofs like this signing on with the above, you've written an argument that is so formless as to be useless.

 

[Marinjuana]

Exactly, that's why it's horseshit. The cowardice of it all is what annoys me; it keeps obliquely referring to right-wing institutions as mired in the strategies of lies and censorship, while then referring to "all sides" being complicit in these issues without naming exactly who this letter appeals to: academics, op-ed writers, and celebrities who get yelled at on Twitter or by their students/readers.

It's so unbelievably disconnected from the realities of how institutional power affords who and what has a voice, and instead blames it on a blobless "society," as if it's the people at large that are doing the firing (what very little of these signees have actually seen consequences for what they say) and not the institutions and elites attempting to cover up their own illicit histories by offering up a few token sacrifices.

Someone like Chomsky, who signed as well, has consistently said that he believes the state should not have the right to decide what is and isn't free speech, which means that he's opposed to public universities taking the job of someone due to a free speech violation, a conviction he's stuck to for 50 odd years. I think it's a more nuanced issue than that and I disagree with his position, but I know (via history) that he's most likely operating in good faith.

Rowling? Weiss? Frum? Brooks? Fukuyama? Mounk? Pinker? Singal? Yglesias? When you have doofs like this signing on with the above, you've written an argument that is so formless as to be useless.

I don't see how that makes it horseshit. The statement justifies itself on its own, I don't see an issue with an affirmation of that viewpoint.

Well, it reads, "The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides."

Do you disagree with that we're in an intolerant climate? The polarization of US politics has been talked about much over the past few years. Can't even get people to agree about wearing masks.

It's obvious that institutional power is not the only factor in what allows debate and voices to be heard, you also need individuals to be tolerant of others' viewpoints. I don't think the letter made an argument to suggest that institutions don't play a role in affording louder voices to some. These institutions wouldn't have fired or made whatever changes if they didn't feel pressured or motivated to do so. And there's also the general point of tolerance of ideas that the letter argued for.

You mention how you disagree with Chomsky who you respect and that's fine, but I don't think you really criticized the contents of the letter as much as you criticize the signers or even their motivations. That so much of the critique of the letter(from various people) would be characterized by a focus on some of the signatories controversy has even more convinced of the value of the letter.

The letter appealed to me, I agreed with the general sentiment and thought it was signed by plenty of respectable individuals in relevant fields of study or practice.

 

[KingHippo]

That so much of the critique of the letter(from various people) would be characterized by a focus on some of the signatories controversy has even more convinced of the value of the letter.

It's because there isn't anything to the letter that hasn't been bemoaned about since at least the 70's. The polarization of politics, the so-called radical college campus, etc. these are old tropes dressed up in a silk shirt. I don't think you could construct a more uncontroversial, agreeable statement than "We think free speech should be tolerated and it's important that people not be destroyed for speaking their minds." It's like the random person on Twitter putting "BLM" or "Gay rights" into their username but otherwise ignoring the nuances of the topic.

Would it not be pertinent, for example, to note that there is a lot of money put into the proliferation and sensationalistic framing of every little university campus brouhaha as the end of civilization? Money that comes from people like the Koch brothers, the Mercers, the DeVos family, etc. who have a deep vested financial interest in the free market and the institutions that sustain it. That billions of dollars is flooded into making what is essentially propaganda that fights against health care reform, climate reform, gun control, and of course alleged anti-conservative thought can't go unnoticed when we're talking about the opinions and discourse put out by people in corporate media, where a lot of this money flows to.

When you say masks, as an example, are politicized now, what caused that to be? Was it your average McDonalds worker or Wal-Mart employee who didn't want it? No probably not. Or perhaps it was corporate-owned media flooding the internet and airwaves with ludicrous assertions that masks did nothing, there was no science to prove it, etc.? The reality is that a lot of money during this pandemic went way upwards to people who already had it, and a big way that happened was because there was a pretty concentrated campaign to say the virus was not serious as a means of avoiding discussions about an economic shutdown, which could potentially hurt the pockets of these people. When it got bad enough to be necessary, the next step was to ensure that big business was protected above all else, and then there was a rush to reopen whenever there was the slightest hint of control. Normalcy, freedom of choice, and the idea of American exceptionalism is so important to these people's coffers that the gears now spin towards decrying masks and public health officials as histrionics, overreaction.

To make a long story short, pretending that it is the masses in the streets, on the run from cruel landlords, pestilence, and brutality from the police state, who are stifling speech and expression and not the elites who either belong to or fund the same institutions that a lot of the signees benefit from or belong to is ludicrous, IMO. People agree that everyone needs a voice, but perhaps the ones actively helping kill people should probably talk less?

 

[ChaosTheory]

So let me get this straight: you're accusing Crimson of defaulting to "racial victimhood," after specifically picking out a video where black women discuss to an audience of black women the often-unsaid aspects of how anti-blackness can perpetuate so that it adversely affects the health of black people, with the intent to mock how hysterical they were about anti-blackness, and Crimson is the one bringing race into the mix?

Nyup, nyup, nyup. You can freshen it up as much as you like. The video I linked was of a 400lbs-woman blaming her obesity on racism. Doesn't require a 50-word soliloquy. We get it, it's very complicatedly complex with complexing complications.

"Bringing race into the mix?" What a daft comment. We're going on 50 pages in this thread about racism against blacks. It's been brought'ed. Victimhood is what I said. Not that saying Crimson is one to bring up race would be out of line. Read this thread.

Or just remember the thread about banning Jacqui where he found it necessary to inject racism into that discussion. I suppose banning fighting game characters is also a complex, multi-faceted issue.

 

[KingHippo]

I'm just saying, it's bold to call someone trying to educate others, through his lived experience, about being black in America and saying he's mired in "racial victimhood" while your retort is to post a video specifically to mock people talking about anti-blackness as being overreacting kooks. The woman in the video doesn't even talk about herself, but is speaking exactly to what I linked: low SES compounded with a sustained coping mechanism against hostile environments can have adverse health effects, and it's disproportionately affecting black people.

It took me two seconds to Google that and see if there was any scientific merit to that, and there was. But you saw an opportunity for a dunk on black people being perpetual victims and ran with it, because God forbid a black person speak to their lived experience and be taken seriously. Not every problem is a result of virulent anti-blackness, but your first instinct probably shouldn't be "lol what victims"

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

I'm just saying, it's bold to call someone trying to educate others, through his lived experience, about being black in America and saying he's mired in "racial victimhood" while your retort is to post a video specifically to mock people talking about anti-blackness as being overreacting kooks. The woman in the video doesn't even talk about herself, but is speaking exactly to what I linked: low SES compounded with a sustained coping mechanism against hostile environments can have adverse health effects, and it's disproportionately affecting black people.

It took me two seconds to Google that and see if there was any scientific merit to that, and there was. But you saw an opportunity for a dunk on black people being perpetual victims and ran with it, because God forbid a black person speak to their lived experience and be taken seriously. Not every problem is a result of virulent anti-blackness, but your first instinct probably shouldn't be "lol what victims"

You are like the DLC that should've come with the base roster of this debate on release day. I tip my hat. All of my hats.

 

[ChaosTheory]

...to post a video specifically to mock people talking about anti-blackness...

Yowza.

 

[KingHippo]

post a video specifically to mock people talking about anti-blackness as being overreacting kooks.

Full quote, btw, before you say I called you a racist

 

[ItsYaBoi]

Yowza.

What a compelling counter argument.

Yowza indeed my dude.

 

[ItsYaBoi]

Remember when conservatives tried en masse to cancel Nike?

Good times