Twitch removes famous emote
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Gotta collect the wealth somehow and when they can convert it to easily movable forms and lock said wealth away the only way to redistribute it is if you can get to it.
Hey, if you wanna argue for re-education camps, that's on you.
Pay me, fucker. Because the $12/hr I get for slinging packages doesn't include "nazi rehabilitation" in the job description.
Calling them out for being a nazi/racist/sexist/homophobe/transphobe already is our contribution to rehabilitating them. It's their job to then look at themselves in the mirror and come to a hopefully positive decision.
Well that's a totally different way of "taking responsibility". It doesn't involve companies being forced to hire/keep people who clearly disagree with their corporate code of ethics/conduct. It usually involves programmes linked to criminal justice and volunteer or social work which may be subsidized by the government. I have no issue spending some € on deradicalisation programmes but you sure as hell are not going to force me to share office space with Fascists, Black Blocks or Radical islamists unless the "ex" prefix appears in front of any of those.
Twitch's Pogchamp Removal Was Never Enough, And Now It's Turning Into A Disaster
It’s not every day you hear about an enormous platform like Twitch swatting the face of one of its most popular emotes clean off and rendering the president’s account indefinitely inert, as it did in the aftermath of last week’s Capitol Building insurrection. But Twitch does do similar things...
kotaku.com
So the story continues. The first of the many "new" pogchamp emotes, is was a streamer by the name of Critical Bard (no relation) who has faced backlash for basically being a black supremacist. Which only further adds to Twitch's stupidity.
Additionally Dr.Disrespect's pog emote is on Twitch still even though they banned the dude, and he has been on record for also doing stupid shit.
And frankly the fact that Twitch would even consider replacing the banned emote with emotes of other real-life people is fucking dumb. Why not just make bunch of cartoony pogchamp emotes so that there is no risk of the person featured says something you don't like later on and the whole cycle starts all over.
I was going to make a joke about the no relation thing but didn't want to unintentionally call you a black supremacist
So...
Nathan Grayson is one hell of a Twitch hog. Goes on and on with his long articles that are so long because he keeps self-referencing up his own butt. Not a fan of the changing PogChamp myself, and this Bard-character's emote looks like he's about to vomit.Twitch's Pogchamp Removal Was Never Enough, And Now It's Turning Into A Disaster
It’s not every day you hear about an enormous platform like Twitch swatting the face of one of its most popular emotes clean off and rendering the president’s account indefinitely inert, as it did in the aftermath of last week’s Capitol Building insurrection. But Twitch does do similar things...
So the story continues. The first of the many "new" pogchamp emotes, is was a streamer by the name of Critical Bard (no relation) who has faced backlash for basically being a black supremacist. Which only further adds to Twitch's stupidity.
Additionally Dr.Disrespect's pog emote is on Twitch still even though they banned the dude, and he has been on record for also doing stupid shit.
And frankly the fact that Twitch would even consider replacing the banned emote with emotes of other real-life people is fucking dumb. Why not just make bunch of cartoony pogchamp emotes so that there is no risk of the person featured says something you don't like later on and the whole cycle starts all over.
But there is context for this "basically a black supremacist" -accusation. It's pretty dumb. "Black supremacy" isn't even a thing, just like "white lives matter" isn't.
Are you saying it's not a thing like it doesn't exist, or it's not a thing like it's not significant enough to warrant caring about?
Nah Black Supremacy is also a thing. It's not widespread but it is one. I mean you ever seen the hate Serena Williams got from a minority in "Black Twitter" for dating a white man?
The general idea behind white supremacy can't be flipped around to black supremacy. Even in places (parts of South Africa for example) where the power dynamic has gone over to black people and they abuse it we don't call it black supremacy. What I mean is that white supremacy is a narrow concept and while parts of it can be flipped around, the history behind the concept makes it so black supremacy can't exist. Maybe some postmodern versions have already emerged online somewhere, but they have zero relevance.
People can be petty over minor things. Being against race mixing is really common anyway.
I think you're overthinking this one. You really can just use the words as words, rather than titles.
" A doctrine of black supremacy is as dangerous as a doctrine of white supremacy. " Martin Luther King, Jr, 1966
He's basically right.
White supremacists adhere to the idea that whites are inherently superior to non-whites: so white people built science, law, civilisation, technology and order whilst black people could only chuck spears and make mud huts. When whites are no longer in power, civilisation will consequently collapse.
There are movements in black culture that can contain elements of such attitudes in reverse that black people are superior (such as the Nation of Islam, which has it that white people are devils made by an Arab scientist), but it is not a significant motivation of why whites may be oppressed in places where black people are dominant. If anything it's a much more simple resentment over hundreds of years of colonialism, exploitation, etc. and consequent desire for redress and revenge.
If a person believes that being black means they are superior to those that are not then they would be a black supremacist. Not sure why you bring up oppression. A person could believe whites are superior but take no direct action to mistreat black people because of societal rules for their whole life or go out at night and murder black people for years, they would be a white supremacist in both cases.
It seems to me that instead of actually using definitions that you're just making arguments at what you perceive to be "what they actually mean".
"but it is not a significant motivation of why whites may be oppressed in places where black people are dominant. If anything it's a much more simple resentment over hundreds of years of colonialism, exploitation, etc. and consequent desire for redress and revenge."
You are assuming that I'm saying that these situations are black supremacy, that I'm being duplicitous. I'm not. I'm talking about the actual definition and ACTUAL black supremacists.
Last edited:
I've thought of it more as an idea or a concept, and thus it wouldn't suit as well. But when it comes around next time I'll take this into consideration.
A racial supremacist inherently believes in the societal domination of their race because society should reflect their racial superiority. That's what supremacism is. You cannot separate the concept of oppression from it. If you mean someone who just thinks their race is better but isn't that bothered about societal domination on the basis of that, we'd just call that racism. If they are oppressing another race for a reason other than supremacism, we'd just call that racial oppression. Obviously, black people can be racist and carry out racial oppression.
The point being that white supremacy is very much a thing as an identifiable ideology with significant numbers of adherents and consequences in our societies. The same is not true of black supremacism because whilst it exists in some minor ways in some form, it is not a significant factor in our countries or remotely equivalent to the expression of white supremacism.
"People can't believe in things that don't exist." - Agema
Yes, I'm twisting your words, but your belief that black people are an oppressed minority, no matter how well founded, is not shared universally, and there are definitely people who think black people are and should be politically dominant. No matter how silly that sounds to you.
You're not just twisting my words, you're missing the point so badly I'm not sure it's worth my effort to put you on track.