• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 13:11
CEST 19:11
KST 02:11
  • 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 202572RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced11BSL 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 roll8
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 I offer completely free coaching services What tournaments are world championships? Server Blocker
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 WardiTV Mondays FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
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
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Simple editing of Brood War save files? (.mlx) Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign
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
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [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
US Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War 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: 773 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1661

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 5126 Next
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!

NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.

Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.


If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
July 12 2019 18:39 GMT
#33201
--- Nuked ---
NewSunshine
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
July 12 2019 18:52 GMT
#33202
On July 13 2019 03:39 JimmiC wrote:
This might be over simplification on a complex issue but to me it is risk reward. If you choose to believe the "victims" then investigate and find out it was false it sucks for the accused and that is not good. But if you choose not to believe the victim, don't investigate and the accused was guilty you both punish the victim and let a rapist go free.

The first one sounds a lot less bad, but still bad. There is no perfect solution as long as there are sexual assaults and some people lie about them.

I mean in the end if Judge Kavanaugh is completely innocent, no doubt that sucks but he still became a SPC justice so it really wasn't that bad. But if he did it, man does that suck for the victim. way worse than for him. It is not as if there is no cost for a victim to come forward.

Not to mention that in any government job I've ever heard of, one that isn't public office, if you had so much as a whiff of a sexual assault on you at any point, you'd be out on your ass no questions asked. Believing and respecting victims should go hand in hand with setting important people to a high standard.
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15686 Posts
July 12 2019 18:53 GMT
#33203
On July 13 2019 03:03 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 13 2019 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:
On July 13 2019 02:37 KwarK wrote:
On July 13 2019 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:
On July 13 2019 01:02 KwarK wrote:
On July 13 2019 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:
On July 12 2019 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On July 12 2019 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that democrats have with sexual harassment is the same one that they have with racism and identity politics: an utter lack of justifiable principle. In creating retarded, unjustifiable standards to attack their conservative political opponents (“all victims must be believed” is a good example) in the name pure political expediency, the inevitable consequence is that democrats would use these standards against themselves. Stated another way, Democrats are practicing the politics of cannibalism.

Nice strawman, nobody ever said that all victims should be believed. I think democrats are perfectly ok with using against themselves the standards they set against Trump. Here it is: next time a democratic candidates boasts on tape groping women, visits the dressing room of pageants to “check”, talks about how the only reason he doesn’t fuck his daughter is their parental bond and that what they have in common is “sex”, cheat on his new, pregnant, thirty years younger wife with an effing pornstar, and is accused of rape by multiple women, we all agree to call him a fucking creep that deserves to go to hell.

See, we have different standards than you.


I think xDaunt is arguing against what is an EXTREMELY prevalent thought among the left in general. There are a great number of people (though I will say mostly women) who say every victim should be believed.

I honestly don't think there is a good solution to this, so long as people confine themselves to binary options. We know there are a lot of rapes and assaults that take place in a situation where there are no witnesses and no viable evidence. So what do we do? Do we say that a crime only happens when there is enough evidence? That would be ignoring the fact that we know there are many cases with insufficient evidence or the evidence is discovered years later. So then do we say we just believe everyone by default? Both of those options suck.

We can do better than what essentially comes down to "pics or it didn't happen" and "no matter what you are guilty". But I think this is a particularly difficult situation to figure out and it does not have an easy answer. Extreme skeptics and extreme believers both neglect this. Sometimes humanity finds itself with questions it can't properly answer yet, and we should be comfortable with that rather than insist we carve something into stone.

Believing victims isn’t about convicting based on individual testimony, it’s a response to a societal pattern of discrediting victims. It impacts only how you treat the victim, not how you treat the alleged abuser. If a sex worker comes to a police station and reports that a respected cop coerced her into sex with threats of arresting her for sex work and making the records public to ruin her life the police should treat her as credible. They shouldn’t immediately execute the respected cop, but nor should they dismiss it as so many have been dismissed.

It’s a direct response to the lack of basic human decency with which victims have been treated. Believe victims is essentially the Black Lives Matter of sexism, something which really should be taken for the very simple surface message rather than overanalyzed into “so you’re saying white lives don’t matter?” or “so you’re saying guilty until proven innocent?”


How do you believe an accusation without also believing someone is guilty?

I think "investigate every accusation" is a better term than "believe every accusation".

It’s not about criminal convictions of the accused, it’s about treating the victim with the dignity, compassion, and credibility that go with belief. It’s not believe every accusation though. It’s believe victims. It’s not about how you treat the accusation, it’s about how you treat the victim. You changed it before disagreeing with it but it is explicitly about doing something for the victims.


Can you elaborate?

As I see it:

1: I was raped by 3
2: I believe you were raped by 3

Or is it:

2: I believe you were raped by someone

?

Belief is not necessary for respect. I think I am misunderstanding your exact position.

It is “for the purpose of this discussion I’ll treat you with the respect and dignity I would any person sharing their personal experiences with me.”

Are you familiar with invalidation? You do not have to agree with someone’s experience to treat it as valid. The specific problem they’re dealing with is the systematic invalidation of victims reporting sexual abuse within society.

Believe victims is a shorthand for the proposed redress of that. If the intent was “lynch accused” then it would be that. But it’s not, it’s just believe victims. It’s what we would expect if we went into the police station to report that we were mugged or told people that our car got stolen. It’s not revolutionary, it’s the default society gives most of us most of the time. That if you say “I’d like to report a robbery” then the police treat you as if you were robbed. “Believe victims” is about the specific problem of victims of sexual assault not receiving that same treatment that we all expect and deserve from society and law enforcement.

That’s why I compared it to “black lives matter”. They’re both referencing an exception to the basic standards of common decency that privileged individuals take for granted. They’re both stating the obvious and there isn’t a deeper meaning behind it. The purpose is to summarize the disconnect between what we expect and what marginalized individuals experience.


It sounds like we have the same idea, just using different words to mean the same thing. I think everything you described can still exist while still witholding judgment.

In addition, I think using language other than "believe" would go a long way when talking to people like xDaunt. When I hear you say "believe", I think you are saying the accused is assumed to be guilty out of respect for the potential victim. But what you are ACTUALLY saying is that every potential victim is entitled to respect and proper process. If a hooker says a cop raped her, it should be investigated, not laughed off. But you are not saying we assume the cop is guilty. It is that you assume the victim isn't a shitbag and that they aren't making shit up. I really do think it is possible to take an agnostic perspective while also investigating.
brian
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States9618 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-07-12 19:21:56
July 12 2019 18:53 GMT
#33204
trying to argue that in believing victims we must declare the accused guilty is a farce, especially coming from a lawyer. we know we can treat the two sides separately and in fact most in the court room must.

this isn’t a new concept. it is the reverse of the exact same coin on which we have the presumption of innocence.

nobody ever saw the presumption of innocence and immediately decided ‘this victim is not a victim.’ because they understood that the presumption of innocence did not affect the veracity of the accuser. nobody ever had to argue against such an absurd claim because nobody was stupid enough to make it.

now we are.

swap ‘presumption’ for ‘belief,’ and tell me what you come away with. is it suddenly a stupid concept? of course not.

one can treat the victim as a victim even if they aren’t, just as one can treat a defendant as innocent, even if they aren’t.

i will go further and add that Daunt conflates this with people who outwardly came out to declare Kavanaugh guilty. they’re distinct things. claiming ‘everyone’ did that is a stretch further than i’m comfortable with, personally.
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
July 12 2019 19:20 GMT
#33205
I don't get it. Is there something about the American psyche and culture where accusations of rape are dismissed, because this is what I am seeing from some people, or is this an internet thing?
brian
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States9618 Posts
July 12 2019 19:23 GMT
#33206
On July 13 2019 04:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't get it. Is there something about the American psyche and culture where accusations of rape are dismissed, because this is what I am seeing from some people, or is this an internet thing?


would you consider not wanting to investigate it dismissal? then yes.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
July 12 2019 19:24 GMT
#33207
On July 13 2019 03:53 brian wrote:
trying to argue that in believing victims we must declare the accused guilty is a farce, especially coming from a lawyer. we know we can treat the two sides separately and in fact most in the court room must.

this isn’t a new concept. it is the reverse of the exact same coin on which we have the presumption of innocence.

nobody ever saw the presumption of innocence and immediately decided ‘this victim is not a victim.’ because they understood that the presumption of innocence did not affect the veracity of the accuser. nobody ever had to argue against such an absurd claim because nobody was stupid enough to make it.

now we are.

swap ‘presumption’ for ‘belief,’ and tell me what you come away with. is it suddenly a stupid concept? of course not.

one can treat the victim as a victim even if they aren’t, just as one can treat a defendant as innocent, even if they aren’t.

Wtf are you talking about? This isn't a farce. This is exactly what happened with Kavanaugh. "Believing the victim" in that scenario didn't just mean Ford should be heard. It meant that Kavanaugh, as the alleged perpetrator, needed to be punished and denied a seat on the Supreme Court due to the accusations brought against him. Kavanaugh most decidedly was not afforded anything resembling a presumption of innocence.
brian
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States9618 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-07-12 19:41:01
July 12 2019 19:26 GMT
#33208
never mind, i think the post stands on its own with regards to that. you just have to get through the rest of it. i would be pretty shocked to have you come away with that same opinion in light of the rest. enough so that i really have to question what your understanding of the presumption of innocence means with regards to the accuser. in the sense that if you don’t mind i’m game to learn.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
July 12 2019 19:31 GMT
#33209
And again, the crucial part about the Kavanaugh case, which most of you still don't understand, is just how patently deficient and absurd the allegations against him were. Kavanaugh's case isn't like Epstein's or Cosby's where there's truly some compelling evidence of real wrongdoing.
brian
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States9618 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-07-12 19:40:09
July 12 2019 19:32 GMT
#33210
i dont see the relevance to the current question. how does that factor into presumption of innocence and believing the accuser? doesn’t review of the evidence start after that? shouldn’t we hold these presumptions and beliefs initially regardless of the evidence, and hash that out in court?

hypothetically, anyway. understanding that this wasn’t court. but we’re using these terms so if you’ll pardon the analogy.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-07-12 19:41:39
July 12 2019 19:40 GMT
#33211
On July 13 2019 04:32 brian wrote:
how does that factor into presumption of innocence and believing the accuser? doesn’t review of the evidence start after that? shouldn’t we hold these presumptions and beliefs regardless of the evidence, and hash that out in court?

hypothetically, anyway. understanding that this wasn’t court. but we’re using these terms so if you’ll pardon the analogy.

Because the argument isn't over how things work in court. The argument is over how we should deal with these types of accusations socially or politically. The Kavanaugh case is so compelling on this point because it is an extreme case in which there was no compelling evidence of misconduct, thus the case exposed the absolute absurdity of the "all victims must be believed" mentality. The lesson is that there clearly must be some quantum of reliable evidence before the victim is to be believed and before society should take some adverse social or political action against the accused. I don't know what that quantum of evidence should be, but it certainly wasn't there in Kavanaugh's case. In contrast, I'd say it is likely there in Epstein's case.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15686 Posts
July 12 2019 19:46 GMT
#33212
On July 13 2019 04:32 brian wrote:
i dont see the relevance to the current question. how does that factor into presumption of innocence and believing the accuser? doesn’t review of the evidence start after that? shouldn’t we hold these presumptions and beliefs initially regardless of the evidence, and hash that out in court?

hypothetically, anyway. understanding that this wasn’t court. but we’re using these terms so if you’ll pardon the analogy.


The way I see it, it should be like this:

Person 1: There is a pickle in this steel box
Person 2: I do not believe you, but I also do not disbelieve you
Person 1: I would like for someone to determine if there is a pickle in this steel box
Person 2: ok

In this case, no one has any capability to know one way or the other before opening the box, so it is entirely possible to neither believe or disbelieve. You just don't know. You have no way to know. You aren't skeptical, but you also aren't convinced. You don't have nearly enough information. So you just kinda leave it as a question mark and then investigate. I just don't understand the idea that we must first start wither other belief or disbelief. What if we just decide to find out and leave it at that?
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
July 12 2019 19:52 GMT
#33213
On July 13 2019 04:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't get it. Is there something about the American psyche and culture where accusations of rape are dismissed, because this is what I am seeing from some people, or is this an internet thing?

No more than in the British. Victims in the UK have an equally hard time getting taken seriously.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
July 12 2019 20:05 GMT
#33214
--- Nuked ---
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-07-12 20:18:06
July 12 2019 20:10 GMT
#33215
I miswrote and I wasn't clear. I meant the bit where people then argue over whether it should be dismissed or not. That it should not be investigated. Some victims may or may not get taken seriously, but the idea that then it should be argued whether accusations of rape SHOULD be taken seriously, just beggers...belief.

There is no other side in UK. There is no "side" for xdaunt's position of no investigation. Serious criminal accusations, whether rape or murder, should be taken seriously. The rich and powerful and politically powerful should not have accusations dismissed. It's mindboggling that it can be argued otherwise.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
July 12 2019 22:12 GMT
#33216
On July 13 2019 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 13 2019 04:32 brian wrote:
i dont see the relevance to the current question. how does that factor into presumption of innocence and believing the accuser? doesn’t review of the evidence start after that? shouldn’t we hold these presumptions and beliefs initially regardless of the evidence, and hash that out in court?

hypothetically, anyway. understanding that this wasn’t court. but we’re using these terms so if you’ll pardon the analogy.


The way I see it, it should be like this:

Person 1: There is a pickle in this steel box
Person 2: I do not believe you, but I also do not disbelieve you
Person 1: I would like for someone to determine if there is a pickle in this steel box
Person 2: ok

In this case, no one has any capability to know one way or the other before opening the box, so it is entirely possible to neither believe or disbelieve. You just don't know. You have no way to know. You aren't skeptical, but you also aren't convinced. You don't have nearly enough information. So you just kinda leave it as a question mark and then investigate. I just don't understand the idea that we must first start wither other belief or disbelief. What if we just decide to find out and leave it at that?

I think you’re still defining believe more narrowly than it is intended here. The expectation isn’t faith, it’s taking the description of the experience at face value. No differently than you’d expect if reporting that someone ran a red light and hit your car. You’re not demanding that there be no investigation, but you’re also not expecting to have someone condescendingly ask if you’re sure that you didn’t want them to hit your car because you love the attention.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-07-12 22:55:34
July 12 2019 22:45 GMT
#33217
I think the whole social/political aspect of allegations more closely parallel civil law than criminal. That is to say it's not about proving something beyond a shadow of a/reasonable doubt or strictly limited to proof of a specific allegation (that's what the criminal court and burdens are for).

It's about the social perception of the actors in question and the arguments presented (which can be greatly aided by facts and evidence but are not strictly limited to them or required to bring a pile of them).

One instance that comes to my mind is that while the criminal justice system stopped at James Earl Ray, the civil system affirmed that MLK jr was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies.

Another is OJ where he was exonerated in criminal court and guilty civilly and as far as most of society was concerned.

Ford Pinto a case where they weren't found criminally liable but were found civilly liable/settled and recovered their reputation more or less.

EDIT: To wrap that to Kavanaugh, there's no argument based on our existing system to put him in jail or anything, but more than enough evidence was presented to keep him off the Supreme Court imo.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-07-13 00:50:31
July 13 2019 00:49 GMT
#33218
On July 13 2019 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 13 2019 03:53 brian wrote:
trying to argue that in believing victims we must declare the accused guilty is a farce, especially coming from a lawyer. we know we can treat the two sides separately and in fact most in the court room must.

this isn’t a new concept. it is the reverse of the exact same coin on which we have the presumption of innocence.

nobody ever saw the presumption of innocence and immediately decided ‘this victim is not a victim.’ because they understood that the presumption of innocence did not affect the veracity of the accuser. nobody ever had to argue against such an absurd claim because nobody was stupid enough to make it.

now we are.

swap ‘presumption’ for ‘belief,’ and tell me what you come away with. is it suddenly a stupid concept? of course not.

one can treat the victim as a victim even if they aren’t, just as one can treat a defendant as innocent, even if they aren’t.

Wtf are you talking about? This isn't a farce. This is exactly what happened with Kavanaugh. "Believing the victim" in that scenario didn't just mean Ford should be heard. It meant that Kavanaugh, as the alleged perpetrator, needed to be punished and denied a seat on the Supreme Court due to the accusations brought against him. Kavanaugh most decidedly was not afforded anything resembling a presumption of innocence.


Kavanaugh wasn't going to be punished.

The idea that him not getting a Supreme Court seat is "punishment" or "unfair" screams arrogance, extreme self-entitlement, and an embarrassing level of privilege that honestly should be quite shameful. The childish manner that Kavanaugh responded with just makes it exponentially worse.

It's an incredible indictment of the moral integrity of the entire conservative movement that they couldn't just find a quality candidate without this issue and instead rammed through someone clearly completely unworthy of being a Supreme Court Justice into that seat.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
July 13 2019 01:31 GMT
#33219
We can't even get to the point where Kavanaugh was denied justice, and Ford was denied a long investigation by (primarily) Feinstein. You couldn't even get a fucking warrant if this had been a criminal investigation based on the testimony against him, and everybody still pussyfoots around the idea that it was a promotion and rape accusations have no impact on a man besides denying promotion. He every bit deserved that appointment and justice was finally served. I am regularly thankful that the chorus of ignorant and malign voices, very well represented in this forum, did not gain their baleful result.

This week's longest stay at #1 for Amazon books is Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. It has insider testimony on the fight for the votes of individual Senators. It's rather amazing how many people opened up for the authors. It even goes back into the most comparable confirmation hearings, those of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. I recommend it to anyone here that wishes to give due time to opposing arguments.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
July 13 2019 01:35 GMT
#33220
Kavanaugh did not deserve to be on the SCOTUS lol. Firstly, nobody deserves that kind of appointment. Positions as a public servant aren't something people are owed, they're a duty and a responsibility. Secondly, Kavanaugh is very clearly not one of the top legal minds of the nation.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Prev 1 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 5126 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
CSO Cup
16:00
#83
Liquipedia
PSISTORM Gaming Misc
15:55
FSL Teamleague: CN vs ASH
Freeedom22
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .394
SpeCial 309
BRAT_OK 103
ProTech79
goblin 49
MindelVK 21
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 18810
Bisu 3650
Shuttle 2543
Jaedong 2136
Flash 2027
EffOrt 1104
BeSt 847
Nal_rA 522
actioN 369
firebathero 367
[ Show more ]
Soma 153
sorry 145
Rush 128
Dewaltoss 116
Aegong 46
Shinee 41
scan(afreeca) 36
JYJ32
zelot 28
Terrorterran 13
IntoTheRainbow 7
Stormgate
BeoMulf186
Dota 2
Gorgc6811
qojqva3392
420jenkins509
League of Legends
Dendi762
Counter-Strike
fl0m3863
ScreaM1347
sgares453
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor520
Other Games
B2W.Neo971
Beastyqt929
FrodaN531
oskar149
KnowMe108
Trikslyr77
QueenE46
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick918
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 17
• tFFMrPink 4
• Kozan
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• sooper7s
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• 80smullet 2
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2965
Other Games
• Shiphtur352
• imaqtpie0
Upcoming Events
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
49m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
15h 49m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
20h 49m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Korean StarCraft League
6 days
[ Show More ]
CranKy Ducklings
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
WardiTV Summer 2025
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...

Disclosure: This page contains affiliate marketing links that support TLnet.

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.