• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 00:52
CEST 06:52
KST 13:52
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?12FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event16Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster14Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1Weekly Cups (June 9-15): herO doubles on GSL week4
StarCraft 2
General
Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form? StarCraft Mass Recall: SC1 campaigns on SC2 thread The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event HomeStory Cup 27 (June 27-29) WardiTV Mondays SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 $200 Biweekly - StarCraft Evolution League #1
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] Darkgrid Layout
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
Flash Announces Retirement From ASL ASL20 Preliminary Maps BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread [BSL20] ProLeague LB Final - Saturday 20:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Trading/Investing Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
Game Sound vs. Music: The Im…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 569 users

My research paper on "Face Of Muhammad Controversy

Blogs > Deleted User 3420
Post a Reply
1 2 Next All
Deleted User 3420
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
24492 Posts
January 07 2015 17:19 GMT
#1
With the attacks on a french newspaper for printing caricatures of Muhammad, this reaearch paper i wrote on pretty much this exact topic is extremely relevant.

In order to avoid derailing the thread on those attacks: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/474818-shots-fired-at-charlie-hebdo-offices-france?page=21#411 , I am posting a link here and creating a blog for discussion on my paper.

The specific topic of my paper was to discuss "whether it was morally right for Jyllands Posten to publish their article entitled 'The Face of Muhammad'". They were a series of cartoon caricatures of muhammad. This event happened 9 years ago. Here is the link to my paper.

http://www.filedropper.com/researchpaperendnotesworkcited-travisblack_1

SoSexy
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Italy3725 Posts
January 07 2015 17:23 GMT
#2
Hello again.

I value freedom of speech above anything else in a free society. The moment you step down from criticizing someone because 'it may offend them' (but I fear that here it is: 'they may hurt us') you're giving away pieces of freedom.

I will still propose the same thing to every defender of radical islam: let us open two websites and make them known to the public via television, newspaper, etc.. I will post jokes and drawings on Hinduism, Christianity and whatever religion you want. You will do the same but about Islam. Would you accept this?
Dating thread on TL LUL
Deleted User 3420
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
24492 Posts
January 07 2015 17:28 GMT
#3
On January 08 2015 02:23 SoSexy wrote:
Hello again.

I value freedom of speech above anything else in a free society. The moment you step down from criticizing someone because 'it may offend them' (but I fear that here it is: 'they may hurt us') you're giving away pieces of freedom.

I will still propose the same thing to every defender of radical islam: let us open two websites and make them known to the public via television, newspaper, etc.. I will post jokes and drawings on Hinduism, Christianity and whatever religion you want. You will do the same but about Islam. Would you accept this?


I am confused about what you are saying. Are you asking me personally, or are you asking a typical "defender of radical islam"?
SoSexy
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Italy3725 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-01-07 17:30:41
January 07 2015 17:29 GMT
#4
On January 08 2015 02:28 travis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2015 02:23 SoSexy wrote:
Hello again.

I value freedom of speech above anything else in a free society. The moment you step down from criticizing someone because 'it may offend them' (but I fear that here it is: 'they may hurt us') you're giving away pieces of freedom.

I will still propose the same thing to every defender of radical islam: let us open two websites and make them known to the public via television, newspaper, etc.. I will post jokes and drawings on Hinduism, Christianity and whatever religion you want. You will do the same but about Islam. Would you accept this?


I am confused about what you are saying. Are you asking me personally, or are you asking a typical "defender of radical islam"?


Not personally, it was a general question

I'll also give a TL;DR for other people: burning the quran and/or the bible is stupid but killing in reaction to it does not justify it AT ALL.
Dating thread on TL LUL
ninazerg
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
United States7291 Posts
January 07 2015 17:32 GMT
#5
I think the Prophet Muhammad was just not very photogenic so he made it a rule that nobody could paint a portrait of him because he was very self-conscious about himself. So when people post pictures of him, isn't that essentially bullying? What if someone posted pictures of you without your permission because all you did was start a major world religion? What then?
"If two pregnant women get into a fist fight, it's like a mecha-battle between two unborn babies." - Fyodor Dostoevsky
lichter
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
January 07 2015 17:42 GMT
#6
On January 08 2015 02:32 ninazerg wrote:
I think the Prophet Muhammad was just not very photogenic so he made it a rule that nobody could paint a portrait of him because he was very self-conscious about himself. So when people post pictures of him, isn't that essentially bullying? What if someone posted pictures of you without your permission because all you did was start a major world religion? What then?


when teenagers got their selfies plastered over the internet coz snapchat, we all called "wtfcyberbullying guys"

i think if Muhammad doesn't want his face on things, we should respect his wishes
AdministratorYOU MUST HEED MY INSTRUCTIONS TAKE OFF YOUR THIIIINGS
opisska
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Poland8852 Posts
January 07 2015 17:51 GMT
#7
So firstly, I have to appreciate that I never knew the story about the Christian-offensive material being rejected, that really does frame the Jyllands-Posten as big hypocrites. However, I don't really think that this should be just about judging someone. Actually, this is a general principle that I would like people to remember more often - that the errors of actors in one case should not be weighted too heavily in judging their other actions (best case example you may ever ask for: the Arab-Israeli conflict, where almost everyone now justifies wrongdoing by "but they did all of those terrible things before"). So let's just study the other points of the article.

In your text, you repeatedly call upon a premise that I found not only incompatible with my moral system, but even mildly disturbing: that one is obligated to evaluate outcomes of his actions and only do what does more good than bad. That is an extremely anti-individualistic stance, don't you feel? I fully understand that the society cannot function without limits on an individual's behaviour, so that one does not run around freely physically hurting others and disturbing any of the essential mechanisms of the society (such as property) - and I accept these rules as mutually beneficial for me and the society, but other than that, I just do not accept that I owe anyone my service in improving the general well-being of the world or any particular person - and even more importantly, I don't see how anyone has the right to tell me otherwise.

Even more disagreeable for me are your gentle attempts to portray the wrongdoing of the reacting Muslims as fault of Jyllands-Posten. If people were hurt, if bad feelings have spun, if relations froze, if violence broke out, I blame all of that solely on those who took part in these actions, not the publishers of a couple of images. There is no way on Earth you can convince me that committing physical violence is anyhow an acceptable response to a drawing.

This issue is actually very similar to seemingly very different problems of regulation of things that have "bad social impact", such as drugs, alcohol, gambling machines etc... There is a variety of things that are regulated or banned and this regulation is often supported by the argument that they increase the occurrence of crime and thus we are better off without them. Well, maybe we are, but isn't the crime itself already banned (kind of tautologically, as the bannedness is what implicates that something is a crime)? I am very worried by this gradual chopping off of our freedoms under the banner of preventing things from happening that we already do not allow. And the logic of not doing something so that people do not conduct violent attacks is no different.

I must admit that my chances of coming on top in this debate are slim to non, as your mastery of the pen is far behind mine, so please don't take this as a full-blown rebuttal (I myself am not very happy with the way some of the points sound, but I am simply not able to convey my thoughts better in English), just as a hint of other possible points of view.
"Jeez, that's far from ideal." - Serral, the king of mild trashtalk
TL+ Member
Daswollvieh
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
5553 Posts
January 07 2015 18:03 GMT
#8
It´s violent people seeking a way to justify their violence. If it wasn´t for "their belief" I´m sure the radicals would find other ways to impose themselves on others. I believe, as long as religious feelings are something of a holy cow that cannot be challenged, there will be no progress in this discourse. Adults have to take responsiblity and cannot go berserk emotionally for something so ridiculously abstract. Granted, people have gone crazy for lots of stupid things for thousands of years, but it doesn´t make it right. Sure, it´s more diplomatic to appease, but I think another approach is needed, one that looks more at the people and less at the fairy-tales they claim to believe and utilize for all kinds of shit.
Tephus
Profile Joined May 2011
Cascadia1753 Posts
January 07 2015 18:26 GMT
#9
Catering to these populations by censoring ourselves is morally wrong from all perspectives.The only morally right thing to do is fight censorship, oppression, and violence. Appeasing those who promote the former is complete moral failure.
AdministratorDirector of Esports
Deleted User 3420
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
24492 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-01-07 18:28:47
January 07 2015 18:28 GMT
#10
On January 08 2015 02:51 opisska wrote:
In your text, you repeatedly call upon a premise that I found not only incompatible with my moral system, but even mildly disturbing: that one is obligated to evaluate outcomes of his actions and only do what does more good than bad. That is an extremely anti-individualistic stance, don't you feel? I fully understand that the society cannot function without limits on an individual's behaviour, so that one does not run around freely physically hurting others and disturbing any of the essential mechanisms of the society (such as property) - and I accept these rules as mutually beneficial for me and the society, but other than that, I just do not accept that I owe anyone my service in improving the general well-being of the world or any particular person - and even more importantly, I don't see how anyone has the right to tell me otherwise.


Well that's fine but the topic of my paper was whether or not their actions were morally right, and I don't think that "doing what you want" much falls under the category of "morally right". It's all relative, I mean "right" is just an opinion, but I think people will generally agree that actions that cause more harm overall are less "right" than others.


Even more disagreeable for me are your gentle attempts to portray the wrongdoing of the reacting Muslims as fault of Jyllands-Posten. If people were hurt, if bad feelings have spun, if relations froze, if violence broke out, I blame all of that solely on those who took part in these actions, not the publishers of a couple of images. There is no way on Earth you can convince me that committing physical violence is anyhow an acceptable response to a drawing.


I never said anything of the sort, and nor do I believe it is the case. My paper is not a criticism of muslims, that is not it's purpose. I stayed true to the purpose of my paper: discussion of impact of the actions of Jyllands-Posten. Whether or not you think various parties made mistakes doesn't change that one thing leads to another.


This issue is actually very similar to seemingly very different problems of regulation of things that have "bad social impact", such as drugs, alcohol, gambling machines etc... There is a variety of things that are regulated or banned and this regulation is often supported by the argument that they increase the occurrence of crime and thus we are better off without them. Well, maybe we are, but isn't the crime itself already banned (kind of tautologically, as the bannedness is what implicates that something is a crime)? I am very worried by this gradual chopping off of our freedoms under the banner of preventing things from happening that we already do not allow. And the logic of not doing something so that people do not conduct violent attacks is no different.


I don't really disagree with you, I just think that it is very complicated. To be honest, for my paper - I had to choose a stance on way or another. And I could have written more, and I do think that counterarguments are strong. I chose the side I chose because I thought the arguments for that side were just a little stronger.

Thank you for reading the paper btw
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
January 07 2015 18:28 GMT
#11
Was the act moral as far as utilitarianism goes is hard to say and that is what actual discussion could be had about. Short term utility was probably negative, but long term utility can easily outweigh any of that. The text never even delved into long term outcomes of such actions. Considering that utilitarian consensus is probably impossible at this time, we need to use some other ethical system that approximates utilitarianism to judge morality of such action. Rule-based ethical systems in place in western countries state quite clearly that the action of the newspapers was neutral .

The whole problem is caused by clash of two cultures. One morally inferior and one superior. Whether the superior one should compromise its rules for short term utility gain to placate the inferior one is the question. The answer currently can be probably only subjective. And in that case I think we might as well go with our current rights where free speech is not limited by offensiveness. Also the whole argument also seems like victim-blaming.

Also respect is earned and not automatic. And respect is granted to individual people, not ideologies (especially not immoral ones such as religions).
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
January 07 2015 18:33 GMT
#12
On January 08 2015 03:26 Tephus wrote:
Catering to these populations by censoring ourselves is morally wrong from all perspectives.The only morally right thing to do is fight censorship, oppression, and violence. Appeasing those who promote the former is complete moral failure.

It is not that simple. There is the whole "screaming-fire-in-full-theater" thing, and there is "hate-speech" that can easily be argued to be harmful and thus immoral.
Deleted User 3420
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
24492 Posts
January 07 2015 18:34 GMT
#13
On January 08 2015 03:28 mcc wrote:
Was the act moral as far as utilitarianism goes is hard to say and that is what actual discussion could be had about. Short term utility was probably negative, but long term utility can easily outweigh any of that. The text never even delved into long term outcomes of such actions. Considering that utilitarian consensus is probably impossible at this time, we need to use some other ethical system that approximates utilitarianism to judge morality of such action. Rule-based ethical systems in place in western countries state quite clearly that the action of the newspapers was neutral .

The whole problem is caused by clash of two cultures. One morally inferior and one superior. Whether the superior one should compromise its rules for short term utility gain to placate the inferior one is the question. The answer currently can be probably only subjective. And in that case I think we might as well go with our current rights where free speech is not limited by offensiveness. Also the whole argument also seems like victim-blaming.


Extremely well put imo, though I would strongly argue against long term utility that could not have been gained otherwise in more... peaceful ways.


Also respect is earned and not automatic. And respect is granted to individual people, not ideologies (especially not immoral ones such as religions).


That's not the world we actually live in, it sounds like a more ideal one where the average person is a little more enlightened than they are here. In this world, most individuals identify theirselves largely upon what groups they are part of. That's how they see their selves.
opisska
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Poland8852 Posts
January 07 2015 18:44 GMT
#14
I don't think that I have really conveyed well what I really want to say - and nobody else did, so I will try to do that again, but probably tomorrow. I would be interested to hear responses, but first I really need to formulate the point so that it gets across, sorry.
"Jeez, that's far from ideal." - Serral, the king of mild trashtalk
TL+ Member
Tephus
Profile Joined May 2011
Cascadia1753 Posts
January 07 2015 18:46 GMT
#15
On January 08 2015 03:33 mcc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2015 03:26 Tephus wrote:
Catering to these populations by censoring ourselves is morally wrong from all perspectives.The only morally right thing to do is fight censorship, oppression, and violence. Appeasing those who promote the former is complete moral failure.

It is not that simple. There is the whole "screaming-fire-in-full-theater" thing, and there is "hate-speech" that can easily be argued to be harmful and thus immoral.


Depends on your definition of hate speech. If a population can label anything offensive as hate speech, then we've lost. If it's limited to conspiracy to commit violence (or another crime), then its redundant.

Screaming fire in a theatre is an awful example. In any organized setting, at most this will cause temporary inconvenience to the people in the theatre. If you consider it metaphorically, then censoring those shouting fire is a massive restriction on free speech. And there is always the issue of who decides. Once someone can decide what is free speech and what isn't, you've by definition lost free speech.
AdministratorDirector of Esports
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
January 07 2015 18:48 GMT
#16
On January 08 2015 03:34 travis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2015 03:28 mcc wrote:
Was the act moral as far as utilitarianism goes is hard to say and that is what actual discussion could be had about. Short term utility was probably negative, but long term utility can easily outweigh any of that. The text never even delved into long term outcomes of such actions. Considering that utilitarian consensus is probably impossible at this time, we need to use some other ethical system that approximates utilitarianism to judge morality of such action. Rule-based ethical systems in place in western countries state quite clearly that the action of the newspapers was neutral .

The whole problem is caused by clash of two cultures. One morally inferior and one superior. Whether the superior one should compromise its rules for short term utility gain to placate the inferior one is the question. The answer currently can be probably only subjective. And in that case I think we might as well go with our current rights where free speech is not limited by offensiveness. Also the whole argument also seems like victim-blaming.


Extremely well put imo, though I would strongly argue against long term utility that could not have been gained otherwise in more... peaceful ways.

Well, I am on the fence on this as I really do not see strong enough arguments either way and since free-speech as it currently is served us reasonably well I prefer the status quo. Problem with "peaceful" (both ways are peaceful from the western side) ways is possibility of causing harm by creating these bubbles where crimes are ignored for fear of offending (wasn't there recently good example of it in Britain ?), prolonging the whole process (and it will be violent to some degree no matter which way we go) by not being strict enough in promoting western values.

On January 08 2015 03:34 travis wrote:
Show nested quote +

Also respect is earned and not automatic. And respect is granted to individual people, not ideologies (especially not immoral ones such as religions).


That's not the world we actually live in, it sounds like a more ideal one where the average person is a little more enlightened than they are here. In this world, most individuals identify theirselves largely upon what groups they are part of. That's how they see their selves.

My statement was normative, not descriptive I know that people tie their identities and self-respect to things other than themselves. I was just saying that I find the "respect" concept extremely overrated as compared to actual actions. Respect is too closely tied with honor, and honor-based cultures and honor-based behaviours are actually root of all evil (slightly exaggerating).
Glowsphere
Profile Blog Joined November 2014
United States170 Posts
January 07 2015 18:55 GMT
#17
On January 08 2015 02:51 opisska wrote:
I must admit that my chances of coming on top in this debate are slim to non, as your mastery of the pen is far behind mine, so please don't take this as a full-blown rebuttal (I myself am not very happy with the way some of the points sound, but I am simply not able to convey my thoughts better in English), just as a hint of other possible points of view.


Just want to say that you express yourself far better than most native English speakers.
Deleted User 3420
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
24492 Posts
January 07 2015 18:58 GMT
#18
On January 08 2015 03:55 Glowsphere wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2015 02:51 opisska wrote:
I must admit that my chances of coming on top in this debate are slim to non, as your mastery of the pen is far behind mine, so please don't take this as a full-blown rebuttal (I myself am not very happy with the way some of the points sound, but I am simply not able to convey my thoughts better in English), just as a hint of other possible points of view.


Just want to say that you express yourself far better than most native English speakers.


I didn't even look at his country. I agree with you. What's with these czech republic people and their awesome english?
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
January 07 2015 19:05 GMT
#19
On January 08 2015 03:46 Tephus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2015 03:33 mcc wrote:
On January 08 2015 03:26 Tephus wrote:
Catering to these populations by censoring ourselves is morally wrong from all perspectives.The only morally right thing to do is fight censorship, oppression, and violence. Appeasing those who promote the former is complete moral failure.

It is not that simple. There is the whole "screaming-fire-in-full-theater" thing, and there is "hate-speech" that can easily be argued to be harmful and thus immoral.


Depends on your definition of hate speech. If a population can label anything offensive as hate speech, then we've lost. If it's limited to conspiracy to commit violence (or another crime), then its redundant.

Screaming fire in a theatre is an awful example. In any organized setting, at most this will cause temporary inconvenience to the people in the theatre. If you consider it metaphorically, then censoring those shouting fire is a massive restriction on free speech. And there is always the issue of who decides. Once someone can decide what is free speech and what isn't, you've by definition lost free speech.

As for hate speech, I agree that it can get out of hand, but so can nearly everything beneficial in society. But you can limit it reasonably. For example I see absolutely no problem with banning even very widely defined hate-speech in schools and other special purpose places. Whereas in normal settings I personally am for complete freedom of speech (on the issue of hate speech), but I see the point of limiting some of it as some countries do. It is hard to judge.

Panic in crowded places is not mere inconvenience. It caused quite a lot of death and suffering in history. And it is nearly no restriction on free speech. What positive purpose can such a speech serve ? Free speech is not self-serving principle. It is good if it causes good, it is bad if it causes suffering. Screaming fire in crowded places (if there is no fire) is in all practical scenarios bad. So no reason to not ban it purely ethically speaking. Sometimes it is more important to keep rules simple than to prevent some bad things, but this is not the case. Free speech rules remain simple and natural enough even after you ban panic inducing speech.

As for who decides, society decides as in all things. Specific laws might be crafted by specialists, but they always have to stand some kind of test of society's approval. Our society is better now than 200 years ago, not because we introduced free speech, but because society changed so that the free speech principle could have been introduced (there is of course feedback loop) and the whole thing is more continuous than discrete, but the general direction is the way I described.

In practice who decides is a judge as free speech is vague enough to require judges to actually weight different competing principles and decide as is their job.
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
January 07 2015 19:08 GMT
#20
On January 08 2015 03:58 travis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 08 2015 03:55 Glowsphere wrote:
On January 08 2015 02:51 opisska wrote:
I must admit that my chances of coming on top in this debate are slim to non, as your mastery of the pen is far behind mine, so please don't take this as a full-blown rebuttal (I myself am not very happy with the way some of the points sound, but I am simply not able to convey my thoughts better in English), just as a hint of other possible points of view.


Just want to say that you express yourself far better than most native English speakers.


I didn't even look at his country. I agree with you. What's with these czech republic people and their awesome english?

Thanks to computers and being too small a country for one language to be enough your whole life But compared to Iceland and the proliferation of English there we have nothing
1 2 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 19h 8m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Noble 24
Bale 2
Dota 2
monkeys_forever647
League of Legends
JimRising 871
Counter-Strike
summit1g8794
Stewie2K391
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King197
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor115
Other Games
tarik_tv8397
Fnx 3206
shahzam643
WinterStarcraft332
RuFF_SC270
Trikslyr41
CosmosSc2 13
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1358
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• practicex 55
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki90
• Diggity4
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift4462
• Lourlo977
• Stunt310
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
19h 8m
The PondCast
1d 5h
RSL Revival
1d 5h
ByuN vs Classic
Clem vs Cham
WardiTV European League
1d 11h
Replay Cast
1d 19h
RSL Revival
2 days
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
WardiTV European League
2 days
FEL
2 days
Korean StarCraft League
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
4 days
BSL: ProLeague
4 days
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-28
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.