• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:43
CEST 07:43
KST 14:43
  • 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
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202561RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension5
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Server Blocker Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
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
Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 649 users

Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 224

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 222 223 224 225 226 783 Next
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
April 11 2015 23:44 GMT
#4461
On April 12 2015 07:17 excitedBear wrote:
Saying that humans have overcome all biology and can operate on purely cultural terms is just as ridiculous as saying that all humans still operate like apes.
The truth is probably somewhere in between, in that some behaviors were imprinted after 1000s of years of evolution and cannot be completely overridden by 'culture' and therefore still come to the surface. This may not be apparent on an individual level, but may present itself on the level of the population.

Differences in male and female sexual preferences are real as the study above shows.
Females value status while males value attractiveness when choosing mates (also see Human Mating Strategies).
The question is how in our culture the display of innate behaviors like male competition is affected/modified.


This is such backwards thinking its an insult to the male gender.

Individual actions correlating to statistical phenomena does not mean the individual actions act in reference to the statistical phenomena.

We live in a culture that tells men to value attractiveness above all. So when we make a scientific study, it will be tainted with the cultural bias of the population being studied and hence does not inform us objectively anything about the behavior of the population assuming the absence of that culture. To make assumptions that biological processes informs the culture and not the other way around is a complete fabrication without evidence. Unless we have a 100% non-cultured subject to test we will not be able to say one way or the other whether "animalistic" human biology overrides or is overridden by culture.

Which is the problem with evolutionary psychologists. They get all freud about the most random shit as a way to validate how they feel men should be allowed to treat women. Its outright barbaric.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5281 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-11 23:52:43
April 11 2015 23:45 GMT
#4462
it's not affected nor modified; just suppressed/inhibited based on culture .

Edit:
To make assumptions that biological processes informs the culture and not the other way around is a complete fabrication without evidence.

psychopaths can do that. they can read the bio processes disregarding the culture.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
Oshuy
Profile Joined September 2011
Netherlands529 Posts
April 12 2015 00:09 GMT
#4463
Social status is already the basis for mate selection in most other social mammals. The mate selection is biased toward the pack leader, but the struggle for dominance in the pack is not a strictly sexual behaviour. Males struggle for dominance amongst themselves to be the leader; getting the most females is a side effect. In some species, the competition is fierce enough to deny females the possibility of a choice (lions/gorillas where the pack only contains a single adult male).

Cultural elements in the choice of mate is rarer, but has been seen in chimps.

Main biological difference in humans is the hidden ovulation and the fact that females are sexually active all year long and not specifically for reproductive purposes. This creates separate behaviours for short time and long time mating. Cultural factors on long term mate selection clearly outweigh biological ones. On short term selection ... depends on the alcool available I guess.

Biologically, the closest species would be bonobos, with multiple males allowed in packs, complex social structures and split male/female social dominance. The fact that females get up to 8 different males during oestrus makes the "mate selection" a difficult notion. Most human females show more restreint than that even when given the opportunity.

Another point that makes us human is that even if a male clearly dominates all others, a female can still make the choice not to select one at all.
(luckily for our survival, it is not systematic either)
Coooot
Yoav
Profile Joined March 2011
United States1874 Posts
April 12 2015 00:10 GMT
#4464
On April 12 2015 07:17 excitedBear wrote:
Saying that humans have overcome all biology and can operate on purely cultural terms is just as ridiculous as saying that all humans still operate like apes.
The truth is probably somewhere in between, in that some behaviors were imprinted after 1000s of years of evolution and cannot be completely overridden by 'culture' and therefore still come to the surface. This may not be apparent on an individual level, but may present itself on the level of the population.


Not what I said, and looks like a generic response to an expected answer. Yes, there are biological differences between men and women. They come to mean less and less as a society becomes less advanced.

On April 12 2015 07:17 excitedBear wrote:
Differences in male and female sexual preferences are real as the study above shows.
Females value status while males value attractiveness when choosing mates (also see Human Mating Strategies).
The question is how in our culture the display of innate behaviors like male competition is affected/modified.


Yeah, statistical averages mean nothing when applied to individuals. Sure, lots of women care about their partners status. Lots of men care about their partners looks (attractiveness is the wrong term here). But lots of men are very status-conscious too. Lots of women are very into looks. And the scale is a hell of a lot more complicated than that, or even than an expanded version. The usual idea here is that women want stability, earning potential, and status. But there's a lot of other things you can find attractive than this.

And in an advanced society, there's less to worry about with things like "will we starve?" I'm consciously going into a low-income, not all to terribly high status (anymore) profession despite having plentiful other options because I want to help people and feel a sense of calling. My girlfriend knew this and selected me over other options at our elite school, despite knowing most of our friends were going to make a great deal more money. Why? She digs the sense of mission and drive. Where the fuck is that on your scale? Where's the fact that I picked her in part because she's really witty? Where's the part where people like other people because of similar interests?

Hell, as the most fundamental objection to the "male-competition" theory, do you really think men are so incapable of choosing one woman among multiple options? Are they slaves to their sexuality to that extent?
excitedBear
Profile Joined March 2015
Austria120 Posts
April 12 2015 01:19 GMT
#4465
Those individual differences can easily be explained as follows:
Only the 'fittest' females will get access to the 'fittest' males.
(Mind that fitness is a complex concept that incorporates a number of cues)
If a female is given the choice between a less fitter male and no mating at all, she will still go for the less fitter male.
The same is true for the males.

However, since the female does carry most of the weight of 'parental investment' (ovulation, 9 months of carriage), "male competition" is by definition distinctive from "female competition".
The females can afford to choose between the best males. In doing so they compete with other females.
Saying that this does not exist in humans is like saying humans are exempt from sexual selection.

It is a simple inductive step to conclude from the prominence of sexual selection in the animal kingdom and phylogenetic nature of biological traits that the same exists in humans. If someone claims that culture overrides all sexual selection, the burden of proof is on him.

Now we can discuss how the nature of this male competition changes once men increase their parental investment in our society.
We know for example some birds where males take over parental care. As a result, females compete with each other for male suitors. So it would seem that parental investment is the defining factor for sexual selection.
Yoav
Profile Joined March 2011
United States1874 Posts
April 12 2015 01:43 GMT
#4466
On April 12 2015 10:19 excitedBear wrote:
Those individual differences can easily be explained as follows:
Only the 'fittest' females will get access to the 'fittest' males.
(Mind that fitness is a complex concept that incorporates a number of cues)
If a female is given the choice between a less fitter male and no mating at all, she will still go for the less fitter male.
The same is true for the males.

However, since the female does carry most of the weight of 'parental investment' (ovulation, 9 months of carriage), "male competition" is by definition distinctive from "female competition".
The females can afford to choose between the best males. In doing so they compete with other females.
Saying that this does not exist in humans is like saying humans are exempt from sexual selection.

It is a simple inductive step to conclude from the prominence of sexual selection in the animal kingdom and phylogenetic nature of biological traits that the same exists in humans. If someone claims that culture overrides all sexual selection, the burden of proof is on him.

Now we can discuss how the nature of this male competition changes once men increase their parental investment in our society.
We know for example some birds where males take over parental care. As a result, females compete with each other for male suitors. So it would seem that parental investment is the defining factor for sexual selection.


I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page.

My real objection is to the notion that there is a single dimension of "fitness" that all men or women respond to. Some guys like big butts. Some don't. Is big butts a positive fitness value? Kinda depends.
Cascade
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
Australia5405 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-12 01:54:08
April 12 2015 01:53 GMT
#4467
On April 12 2015 01:37 excitedBear wrote:
Here is my question:

'Male competition' is an aspect of courtship behavior in the majority of animal species.
Females usually have to choose the best male among competing males for reproduction (See Sexual selection).

Do you think that 'male competition' is an innate human behavior or can culture override this behavior?
In our modern world where gender equality has been established, do men still compete against each other for women?

Is it innate? Yes, ofc. Do you need to ask?

Can culture override it? Yes, ofc, at least to some extent. Just look at different cultures, and see how it is much more prevalent in some than in others. Just comparing within western Europe, I see a huge difference between Sweden and Italy in this. I don't think anyone will claim that this difference is genetic.

Gender equality is far from being established in the modern world.

And yes, ofc men still compete for (the attractive) women. To some extent, and in some cultures more than others, women compete for (the attractive) men as well. These days, the competition is mostly not a matter of physical fighting, but more of courting and grabbing the attention of the women (man).
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
April 12 2015 02:10 GMT
#4468
On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 12 2015 10:19 excitedBear wrote:
Those individual differences can easily be explained as follows:
Only the 'fittest' females will get access to the 'fittest' males.
(Mind that fitness is a complex concept that incorporates a number of cues)
If a female is given the choice between a less fitter male and no mating at all, she will still go for the less fitter male.
The same is true for the males.

However, since the female does carry most of the weight of 'parental investment' (ovulation, 9 months of carriage), "male competition" is by definition distinctive from "female competition".
The females can afford to choose between the best males. In doing so they compete with other females.
Saying that this does not exist in humans is like saying humans are exempt from sexual selection.

It is a simple inductive step to conclude from the prominence of sexual selection in the animal kingdom and phylogenetic nature of biological traits that the same exists in humans. If someone claims that culture overrides all sexual selection, the burden of proof is on him.

Now we can discuss how the nature of this male competition changes once men increase their parental investment in our society.
We know for example some birds where males take over parental care. As a result, females compete with each other for male suitors. So it would seem that parental investment is the defining factor for sexual selection.


I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page.

My real objection is to the notion that there is a single dimension of "fitness" that all men or women respond to. Some guys like big butts. Some don't. Is big butts a positive fitness value? Kinda depends.


Also assumes a binary sexual preference.

Do lesbians compete with men for women's attention?
Do gays compete with men for men's attention?
What about post operations individuals? Do they just not have enough/too much testosterone/estrogen?

Its a very old-world western-christian ideal that assumes the absence of non-masculine ideals in courtship. For example, assuming that courtship is Male chasing Female and not a collaborative work between male and female.

Evolutionary Psychology is something normally pushed by old fashion theists and misogynists for the most part.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Oshuy
Profile Joined September 2011
Netherlands529 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-12 09:10:31
April 12 2015 09:09 GMT
#4469
On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 12 2015 10:19 excitedBear wrote:
Those individual differences can easily be explained as follows:
Only the 'fittest' females will get access to the 'fittest' males.
(Mind that fitness is a complex concept that incorporates a number of cues)
If a female is given the choice between a less fitter male and no mating at all, she will still go for the less fitter male.
The same is true for the males.

However, since the female does carry most of the weight of 'parental investment' (ovulation, 9 months of carriage), "male competition" is by definition distinctive from "female competition".
The females can afford to choose between the best males. In doing so they compete with other females.
Saying that this does not exist in humans is like saying humans are exempt from sexual selection.

It is a simple inductive step to conclude from the prominence of sexual selection in the animal kingdom and phylogenetic nature of biological traits that the same exists in humans. If someone claims that culture overrides all sexual selection, the burden of proof is on him.

Now we can discuss how the nature of this male competition changes once men increase their parental investment in our society.
We know for example some birds where males take over parental care. As a result, females compete with each other for male suitors. So it would seem that parental investment is the defining factor for sexual selection.


I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page.


Female competition and male competition are not exclusive. The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care, whether it can be derived from a local cultural situation ... is an interesting field of study.
Coooot
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
April 12 2015 16:21 GMT
#4470
On April 12 2015 18:09 Oshuy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:
On April 12 2015 10:19 excitedBear wrote:
Those individual differences can easily be explained as follows:
Only the 'fittest' females will get access to the 'fittest' males.
(Mind that fitness is a complex concept that incorporates a number of cues)
If a female is given the choice between a less fitter male and no mating at all, she will still go for the less fitter male.
The same is true for the males.

However, since the female does carry most of the weight of 'parental investment' (ovulation, 9 months of carriage), "male competition" is by definition distinctive from "female competition".
The females can afford to choose between the best males. In doing so they compete with other females.
Saying that this does not exist in humans is like saying humans are exempt from sexual selection.

It is a simple inductive step to conclude from the prominence of sexual selection in the animal kingdom and phylogenetic nature of biological traits that the same exists in humans. If someone claims that culture overrides all sexual selection, the burden of proof is on him.

Now we can discuss how the nature of this male competition changes once men increase their parental investment in our society.
We know for example some birds where males take over parental care. As a result, females compete with each other for male suitors. So it would seem that parental investment is the defining factor for sexual selection.


I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page.


Female competition and male competition are not exclusive. The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care, whether it can be derived from a local cultural situation ... is an interesting field of study.


By that logic, competition is based purely on culture not biology. Especially if the models can conveniently be changed at will.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Oshuy
Profile Joined September 2011
Netherlands529 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-04-12 20:44:45
April 12 2015 20:44 GMT
#4471
On April 13 2015 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 12 2015 18:09 Oshuy wrote:
On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:
I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page.


Female competition and male competition are not exclusive. The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care, whether it can be derived from a local cultural situation ... is an interesting field of study.


By that logic, competition is based purely on culture not biology. Especially if the models can conveniently be changed at will.


How so ? Your model is the framework in which you work. It does not have to be changed unless your data contradicts it. And no, there is nothing to indicate that mate selection is based purely on culture. Cultural factors are part of the local fitness evaluation, of course, but biological ones cannot be denied.
(one such example, humans mostly desire sexual intercourse with other humans and there could not be a culture built otherwise)
Coooot
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
April 12 2015 22:05 GMT
#4472
On April 13 2015 05:44 Oshuy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 13 2015 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On April 12 2015 18:09 Oshuy wrote:
On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:
I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page.


Female competition and male competition are not exclusive. The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care, whether it can be derived from a local cultural situation ... is an interesting field of study.


By that logic, competition is based purely on culture not biology. Especially if the models can conveniently be changed at will.


How so ? Your model is the framework in which you work. It does not have to be changed unless your data contradicts it. And no, there is nothing to indicate that mate selection is based purely on culture. Cultural factors are part of the local fitness evaluation, of course, but biological ones cannot be denied.
(one such example, humans mostly desire sexual intercourse with other humans and there could not be a culture built otherwise)


You say

"The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care"

That is a cultural practice, not biological. Which means the models only represent cultural practices, based on your logic. How humans take care of babies is not biological. Babies being born from women is biological, how they take care of them and who takes care of them is not biological.

Also, lots of humans fuck animals. It is mostly cultural restrictions preventing it from being practiced more often. Similar to how cultural factors prevented the open practice of homosexuality despite the fact that a percentage of the population desired it.

Your logic only makes sense if you only believe in a binary sexual identity.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Oshuy
Profile Joined September 2011
Netherlands529 Posts
April 12 2015 22:07 GMT
#4473
On April 13 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 13 2015 05:44 Oshuy wrote:
On April 13 2015 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On April 12 2015 18:09 Oshuy wrote:
On April 12 2015 10:43 Yoav wrote:
I'm sorry, so you're saying that in culturally egalitarian societies, where men and women share care of child, this difference will vanish and also that women will in fact compete for men in lots of situations? I think we're on the same page.


Female competition and male competition are not exclusive. The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care, whether it can be derived from a local cultural situation ... is an interesting field of study.


By that logic, competition is based purely on culture not biology. Especially if the models can conveniently be changed at will.


How so ? Your model is the framework in which you work. It does not have to be changed unless your data contradicts it. And no, there is nothing to indicate that mate selection is based purely on culture. Cultural factors are part of the local fitness evaluation, of course, but biological ones cannot be denied.
(one such example, humans mostly desire sexual intercourse with other humans and there could not be a culture built otherwise)


You say

"The models expect female competition to be more present when males have a larger role in parental care"

That is a cultural practice, not biological. Which means the models only represent cultural practices, based on your logic. How humans take care of babies is not biological. Babies being born from women is biological, how they take care of them and who takes care of them is not biological.

Also, lots of humans fuck animals. It is mostly cultural restrictions preventing it from being practiced more often. Similar to how cultural factors prevented the open practice of homosexuality despite the fact that a percentage of the population desired it.

Your logic only makes sense if you only believe in a binary sexual identity.


Now you just don't make sense. Nice try, but end of conversation until you reconnect to reality.
Coooot
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
April 13 2015 01:10 GMT
#4474
Where do I buy this decanter in particular?

[image loading]
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17983 Posts
April 13 2015 14:12 GMT
#4475
On April 13 2015 10:10 Djzapz wrote:
Where do I buy this decanter in particular?

[image loading]

Your grandma's garage sale.
ThomasjServo
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
15244 Posts
April 13 2015 14:48 GMT
#4476
On April 13 2015 23:12 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 13 2015 10:10 Djzapz wrote:
Where do I buy this decanter in particular?

[image loading]

Your grandma's garage sale.

Probably the closest you'll get without more than a fuzzy picture.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
April 13 2015 15:00 GMT
#4477
On April 13 2015 23:48 ThomasjServo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 13 2015 23:12 Acrofales wrote:
On April 13 2015 10:10 Djzapz wrote:
Where do I buy this decanter in particular?

[image loading]

Your grandma's garage sale.

Probably the closest you'll get without more than a fuzzy picture.


Theoretically, he can also bring the picture to a glass blower and pay him for a one time custom job.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
April 13 2015 15:08 GMT
#4478
damnit.

It's Tyrion's decanter!
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
waffelz
Profile Blog Joined June 2012
Germany711 Posts
April 13 2015 18:45 GMT
#4479
As a followup question to my "which american accent I should check out?"-questions:

While I checke out a bunch of accents on youtube, I sometimes stumbled across some actor who does accent X/speaks language Y and noticed there is quite a lot of fuss about actors who speak multiple languages. Is this just part of the show or is being multilingual really an exception in the USA? I believe that it isnt, but I still feel like asking just to be sure, since it doesnt sound that bad if a educational system isnt focusing on foreign languages while the native language is speaken all over the world.
RIP "The big travis CS degree thread", taken from us too soon | Honourable forum princess, defended by Rebs-approved white knights
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18826 Posts
April 13 2015 18:47 GMT
#4480
Being mulitingual is the exception here in the US.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Prev 1 222 223 224 225 226 783 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h 17m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
WinterStarcraft640
Nina 231
Fuzer 76
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 3660
Noble 47
ggaemo 34
League of Legends
JimRising 712
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1289
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor107
Other Games
summit1g6510
shahzam1079
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick975
BasetradeTV48
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH260
• practicex 28
• Adnapsc2 11
• intothetv
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota272
League of Legends
• Doublelift4926
• Lourlo1407
Other Games
• Scarra1603
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
4h 17m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
8h 17m
CSO Cup
10h 17m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
12h 17m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 3h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 8h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 12h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Korean StarCraft League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL Team Wars
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
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
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.